create_parameter_file

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the precondition that the package must already exist, which is useful context but does not disclose behaviors like overwriting existing files or whether directories are created.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, but the description does not explain the relationship between node_name, parameter_file_name, and the generated file's content. The low parameter coverage and lack of usage guidance leave gaps, though the existing-package precondition provides some 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarification. It does not explain any of the four parameters (workspace_path, package_name, node_name, parameter_file_name) on its own, though the phrase 'inside an existing package' hints at package_name's role. This is minimal compensation for 0% 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the specific resource ('a ROS 2 parameter YAML file'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying 'inside an existing package.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, fully differentiating it from other create_* tools.

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 clear context by stating the tool operates 'inside an existing package,' implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like create_launch_file or create_node, nor does it note any exclusions.

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