coordinator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells what can be done (start/stop/restart) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether restart causes downtime, if operations are asynchronous, or what impact stopping has on other tools. This is minimal disclosure.

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?

One concise sentence contains both the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple lifecycle tool, with no redundant wording or filler.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but it lacks context about what the coordinator is, what happens on each action, or what the result will be. With no annotations or output schema, the agent needs more contextual details to use it reliably.

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 fully defines the single required parameter 'action' with an enum (start/stop/restart) and a description ('Action'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 'Start, stop, or restart the coordinator' clearly identifies the tool's action (start/stop/restart) and its target resource (the coordinator). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like metrics, status, logs, or inject, which are not lifecycle management actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use the coordinator tool versus alternatives (e.g., orchestrate, handle_stuck) or any prerequisites/preconditions. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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