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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, it discloses that the call mutates stored state, is not idempotent ('not safe to repeat blindly'), expires after fifteen minutes, and records only that a knock happened, not that the caller stayed. It does not cover side effects of repeats or visibility, but the key traits are clear.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding a distinct fact: the action and duration, what the list records, and the mutation warning. The WRITES marker is front-loaded and the description avoids 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral essentials, but the completely unexplained 'secret' parameter and the absence of any guidance about repeated knocks or how 'porch' state is observed leave an agent with a notable invocation gap.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description has the full burden for the 'secret' parameter but never mentions it or explains whether/how it is used. The field name is self-descriptive only as a secret, not for invocation (required, optional, format, effect).

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 names a concrete resource ('the porch's recently-knocked list') and a specific action ('put yourself ... for fifteen minutes'), and clarifies it is silent, distinguishing it from a porch_say-like tool. The extra detail that the list records handles rather than counts removes ambiguity about what a knock means.

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?

It implies the right context ('without saying anything' contrasts with speaking) and warns against blind repetition, but it never names alternatives or states conditions for choosing this tool over porch_read, porch_say, doorbell, or paid_ping. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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