alert_operator

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses non-blocking behavior, that no reply is typed back, where the alert surfaces (operator inbox popup, herdr notification), that it persists and counts in the tab's ❓ badge until acknowledged, and the one-alert-per-issue convention. This is a genuinely rich behavioral contract for a mutation-like tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and its non-blocking constraint, then routing, then lifecycle. Every sentence carries information, though the quoted example phrasings and the multi-clause sentences make it denser than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with the lifecycle coverage (create, surface, acknowledge, withdraw), alternatives, and severity levels, an agent has nearly everything needed; only asked_by semantics and any dedup/expiry rules are absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It supplies the allowed severity values (info | warning | urgent) and implicitly the content of title/message via the quoted examples, but asked_by is never explained and the title-vs-message split is left to inference, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Names a specific action (alert the human operator) with its defining constraint front-loaded: WITHOUT blocking and without expecting an answer. It clearly separates itself from ask_operator by name and by semantics, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('instead of writing the warning into chat', 'instead of stopping to wait') and when not to ('Use ask_operator instead when you need a decision or information'), plus the follow-up actions (withdraw_alert if resolved, check_answers to see acknowledgements). Guidance and routing are complete.

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