sg_train_alerts

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

The description discloses that an SG_LTA_KEY is required, which is a useful behavioral prerequisite not captured by any annotations. However, it does not mention response format, rate limits, or whether the data is live or cached. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, and this limited disclosure is only partially sufficient.

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 extremely concise, composed of two short sentences that state the purpose and the key requirement. Every word contributes value, and the structure front-loads the main action before the prerequisite. There is no fluff 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent can expect in the response. It does not describe the structure of the alerts (e.g., affected lines, severity, timestamp), leaving potential gaps in interpretation. The tool is simple and the purpose is clear, but the lack of return-value information makes it only partially complete.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of them. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description adds nothing beyond what the empty schema shows. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 retrieves MRT/LRT service alerts and disruptions, using a specific verb 'Get' and a concrete resource. It is easily distinguished from siblings like sg_bus_arrival (bus arrivals) and sg_mrt_crowd (crowd levels), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool should be used when MRT/LRT service alerts are needed, but it provides no explicit comparison with alternative tools such as sg_bus_arrival or sg_traffic_incidents. No exclusions or conditions for when to avoid this tool are stated, so guidance is limited to an implied use case.

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