Connect queue-length bus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal that this is a non-read-only, open-world operation. The description adds that the result is a scaffold with certain components, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether it opens a websocket connection, requires an external adapter, or modifies existing components, leaving much to inference.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then enumerates key included features without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is appropriately compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter scaffold tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level summary of the scaffold's contents but omits important context: prerequisites, connection behavior, and what exactly the scaffold does after creation. It is adequate for a simple builder but leaves gaps that an agent would need to resolve through defaults or assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage only at 22%, the description partially compensates by grouping parameters into conceptual categories (sample windows -> sample_count, adapter source -> adapter_url/adapter_mode, alert policy -> alert_threshold_people). However, it does not map all parameters (e.g., active, queue_count, queue_label) and leaves some ambiguity about their precise roles, so it adds moderate value beyond the sparse schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('queue-length scaffold'), and it lists the scaffold's key components (aggregate queue metrics, sample windows, adapter source, alert policy notes), giving a specific picture. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling bus-connection tools, but the unique resource name and listed components make the purpose recognizable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states typical use cases nor mentions related tools like connect_people_counting_bus or connect_parking_occupancy_bus. The description is purely about what the tool creates, so an agent must infer appropriate usage context from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.