alert_create

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

The description is behaviorally rich—it explains local storage, refusal of unevaluable conditions, per-bar firing, and lack of auto-delivery. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=true while the description clearly describes a write operation ('Create ... stored on this machine'). This directly contradicts the annotations, so the score must be 1.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each of its six sentences earns its place: core action, grammar equivalence, reference vocabulary, declaration requirement, firing frequency, and delivery caveat. There is 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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics, evaluation model, failure mode (refusal), and delivery behavior. It does not describe the return/response shape, and cooldown_minutes behavior is left to the schema, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 78% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by listing example series ids (sma20, sma50, rsi14, macdLine) and price fields (close, high, low, volume, hl2), clarifying that left/right can be series, price fields, or numbers, and instructing that referenced items be declared via overlays/panels. This compensates for the undocumented right parameter.

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 action 'Create a price or indicator alert on an IDX stock' and clarifies the storage scope 'stored on this machine.' It distinguishes itself from related siblings by naming alert_check as the evaluator and implicitly contrasting with alert_list/alert_delete.

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 gives clear context: alerts fire once per bar, are not delivered automatically, and must be evaluated via alert_check because there is no background daemon. It also explains that referenced series must be declared via overlays/panels. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select the tool appropriately.

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