Agent Wake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a two-phase preview-then-commit behavior, which is real additional context, but it says nothing about permissions needed, what happens if the wake_id is invalid or already fired, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the resource and identifier front-loaded and the workflow immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core interaction pattern but omits error behavior, permission requirements, and what the preview actually returns. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description meaningfully fills the most important gap by explaining confirm's role as a preview/commit switch. wake_id is self-evident and the inbox parameter goes entirely unexplained in the description, so it compensates only partially for the low 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 states a specific verb (cancel) and resource (a pending wake-up) keyed by wake_id. It is clearly distinct from schedule_wake in practice, but it never names or contrasts with its siblings, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 gives an explicit invocation workflow: call once without confirm to preview, then with confirm=true. That is concrete usage context, though it offers no conditions for choosing cancel_wake over siblings like check_wakes or schedule_wake, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver real behavioral detail: each wake-up is returned only once (an at-most-once delivery guarantee), and results carry saved state plus thread ID. What is missing is the safety profile (read-only nature), any rate/pagination behavior, and what happens to due items after they are collected.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior (what is collected, what comes back) is front-loaded and the actionable instruction sits last, which is exactly the right ordering for an agent scanning for what to do.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned payload (due items with saved state and thread ID, plus upcoming ones). It is close to complete for a single-optional-param read tool, with only minor gaps around ordering and whether collecting consumes the wake-ups.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the inbox name, its secrecy requirement, and the API-key alternative. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at the baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specific action and resource: it collects due wake-ups for the inbox and lists upcoming ones, and it discloses what each returned item contains (saved state, thread ID). That is unambiguous against the read-side counterpart of the sibling tools. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with schedule_wake or cancel_wake, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

"Call this at the start of a session" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most definitions provide. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when not to call it, nor does it name the sibling alternatives (schedule_wake / cancel_wake) and the conditions that would route an agent to them instead.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses what is persisted (notes, thread ID, next step), where it is delivered (callback URL vs held for check_wakes), and that an unconfirmed call saves nothing. It does not cover failure modes, tier limits, or repeat behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, then the operational rule. No filler or repetition.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent, delivery behavior, and the confirm workflow adequately. Minor gaps remain around tier limits, repeat semantics, and error/permission behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter (when, inbox, state, confirm, thread_id, callback_url, repeat_minutes) is already documented. The description restates the confirm preview workflow but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, leaving it at the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Schedule a wake-up for your agent') and immediately explains the mechanism (POSTs saved state to callback URL, or holds it for check_wakes). An agent can distinguish this from cancel_wake/check_wakes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit reason to use it ('so a later, fresh session picks up where this one stopped'), names the alternative path (check_wakes when no callback_url), and prescribes the exact call sequence: preview without confirm, show the user, then call with confirm=true.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the free-tier cap of 50 calls/day, that usage is 'not metered,' and the $9/month upgrade cost. It doesn't state return format or whether the call itself consumes quota, but the key behavioral facts are present.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the quota context. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema utility tool this is nearly complete: it explains what is shown (usage plus upgrade link) and the governing quota. Minor gaps around exact return contents and whether the call counts against the free tier.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies; the description's mention of 'your key or IP' usefully explains the implicit scoping of the result.

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 states a specific verb and resource: show today's usage for the caller's key or IP, plus the upgrade link. It is immediately distinguishable from the wake-scheduling siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say so. Clear and specific, just not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this to check quota or find the upgrade path. The free-tier limit (50 calls/day) hints at when it matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance.

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