timer

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: the expired round is internal (not a user message), only allows brief follow-up, and prohibits automatic device operation. This goes beyond what annotations might provide and fully informs the agent of constraints.

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 very concise, using bullet points or clauses for usage, non-usage, and constraints. Every sentence adds essential information, and the structure is clear and scannable for an AI agent.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides complete contextual information: overall purpose, trigger mechanism, usage scenarios, constraints, and parameter semantics. It leaves no significant gaps for the agent to infer incorrectly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the label helps identify the purpose when the timer expires, which is not explicit in the schema. However, seconds range is already in schema minimum/maximum. The description adds moderate semantic improvement.

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 sets a timer that triggers an internal follow-up after a specified number of seconds. It starts with the Chinese name in brackets, then gives a specific verb-resource combination. The sibling tools are all hardware-related (e.g., adjust_strength, burst, change_wave), so this tool's purpose is distinct and easily understood.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (scenarios like 'ask later' or 'remind later') and when not to use (immediate follow-up). It also includes constraints such as the expired round being an internal trigger and that the follow-up must be brief with no automatic device operation. This offers excellent decision guidance.

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