add_controller

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: the gate allows flow only when signal is present, signal is read but not consumed (information link), and initial_signal controls initial state. It does not discuss side effects or safety, but the 'add' action implies creation, and output schema exists.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose, then one line about signal behavior, then two bullet points for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded. No redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, signal behavior, parameter meanings. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema), so the description must add meaning. It provides clear explanations: 'name' with example values, 'initial_signal' with behavioral implication (starts enabled if True). This adds value beyond the basic schema titles.

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 it adds a Controller (Gate) pattern that controls flow based on a signal. It uses specific verb 'Add' and resource 'Controller (Gate)', distinguishing it from other 'add_*' tools that add different elements like machines or queues.

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?

The description provides behavioral context (signal is read but not consumed) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_wip_controller' or 'add_threshold_activation'. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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