emergent_wake_environment

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior and the auto-sleep rule, but does not disclose whether waking is idempotent, whether it costs credits, how long waking takes, or what happens if the environment is already awake. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action comes first, and the useful sleep-threshold context is appended parenthetically without distracting from the primary purpose.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is largely sufficient: it states the operation and the condition under which it is needed. It could mention side effects or error behavior, but the low complexity and clear purpose keep the definition reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with jobId documented as 'Job ID of the sleeping environment'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but because the schema already carries full parameter documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Wake up' with a clear resource, 'sleeping Emergent environment', and adds the auto-sleep-after-30-minutes context. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like emergent_create_project or emergent_list_projects, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly frames the tool's use case: waking an environment that is sleeping due to inactivity, with the 30-minute threshold making the condition concrete. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the conditional context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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