add_resource_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior: entity tries resources in order, each with its own parameters. However, it omits what happens when all resources are busy (e.g., blocking, waiting). Still, the provided behavioral model is clear and helpful.

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 well-structured: a high-level summary, a behavioral model, then a clear Args list with examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is not verbose and uses appropriate formatting.

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 (4 parameters, role in simulation), the description covers the configuration well. It explains the preference ordering and parameter duties. However, it lacks information on how the ResourceSet interacts with other model elements and what happens under resource exhaustion. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with types, defaults, and examples, especially the 'resources' array with a nested dict structure. This adds immense value beyond the 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 it adds a ResourceSet that models entity trying resources in preference order. The verb 'add' and the noun 'ResourceSet' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like add_machine by explaining the preference-based resource selection 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 explains when to use it (for resource preference ordering) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like add_multi_resource. There is no guidance on alternatives.

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