add_conveyor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Every item is processed at every station (no bypass option).' It does not mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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?

Very concise: a short main sentence, a behavioral note, an alternative tool reference, and a clear bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value with 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 tool's complexity (adding a pattern with stations) and that output schema exists but is not described, the description covers the main use. However, it does not fully specify all possible station properties (only shows example with name, time, distribution), leaving some ambiguity about additional properties.

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%, but the description's Args section adds meaning: explains 'name' with examples, 'stations' with a sample list of objects showing expected structure (name, time, distribution), and 'transport_time' with its function. This compensates significantly for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Add a Conveyor pattern with sequential processing stations' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'add_conveyor_line' by noting 'no bypass option' and directing bypass use cases to the sibling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus 'add_conveyor_line' (for stations with bypass logic). However, it does not provide other when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond that single alternative.

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