boosters

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context: it reports ownership/commitment state plus machine holders, and discloses a conditional mode where kind=shards performs a fit-check against free or slug-craftable shards.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core output scope is front-loaded and the conditional shards behavior follows. The phrasing 'free, committed and owned' is slightly compressed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With eight parameters, no output schema and only 50% schema description coverage, the description should do more: it never explains pagination (limit/offset), save/world scoping, or the shape of returned data. It covers the interesting subset (kind and plan parameters) but leaves the rest underspecified.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, yet the description clarifies just three of the eight parameters (kind, plan_machines, plan_clock) and their interaction. The save, as_of, world, limit and offset parameters are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (Power Shards / Somersloops) and the information returned (free, committed, owned, and which machines hold them), which is more specific than the opaque tool name 'boosters'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling tool, but the enumerated output scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: setting kind=shards unlocks an overclock-planning check via plan_machines/plan_clock, which hints at when this tool is relevant. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like inventory or hard_drives, nor any exclusion guidance.

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