add_conveyor_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the bypass logic (if free process, if busy bypass), return loop, and processed items exit. It adequately reveals behavioral traits beyond just 'add'.

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?

Description is well-structured with a bold purpose statement, a 'How it works' section, and a bulleted argument list. It is front-loaded with key info, though could be slightly more concise by removing the 'This is the preferred tool' repetition.

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 (8 parameters, output schema) and many siblings, the description explains the behavioral logic and parameter meanings. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a network, but for a creation tool it provides sufficient context.

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%, so description must compensate. It provides brief one-line explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Mean processing time'), but lacks depth like allowed values or dependencies. Adds meaning but minimally.

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 tool adds a complete conveyor line with Try-or-Bypass workstations. It distinguishes from siblings like add_conveyor (likely simpler) and add_conveyor_workstation (individual) by emphasizing it creates everything in one call and is preferred for bypass logic.

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 explicitly states 'THIS IS THE PREFERRED TOOL for conveyor systems with bypass logic,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like add_conveyor.

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