connect_bounded_consumer

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

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral context. It describes the arc addition and naming lookup, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., errors if names don't exist), permissions, or atomicity. It is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise, using a clear single-sentence summary followed by a structured 'Args' block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 moderate complexity, the description explains the core logic and parameters well. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., the queue and consumer must already exist) and does not mention the output, though an output schema exists. Slightly incomplete for a fully self-contained definition.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section provides explicit meanings for both parameters: 'queue_name' is linked to add_bounded_queue, and 'consumer_name' identifies the downstream consumer type. This fully compensates for the schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Wire capacity recycling' and the resource 'BoundedQueue and its consumer'. It specifies the exact action (adding an arc) and distinguishes itself from siblings like connect_blocking_consumer by focusing on bounded queue capacity recycling.

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 the tool's function and the naming conventions, allowing an agent to infer when to use it (when a bounded queue and consumer need capacity recycling). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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