connect_return_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workstations must exist), side effects (e.g., arc creation), or constraints on use. The description only states the basic action and parameters.

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: two sentences followed by a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and is free of unnecessary information, earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, the description lacks details about state changes (e.g., arcs created), prerequisites (existing workstations), and potential interactions with other network elements. This leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists parameters with defaults and time unit options, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the context of 'return_delay' or the significance of the time unit options, leaving some ambiguity.

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's action: 'Create return loop from last workstation back to first.' It includes a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'add_conveyor_line' by recommending that alternative.

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 advises to prefer 'add_conveyor_line' which creates return loops automatically, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and directing to an alternative.

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