timeout_driver_attempt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it logs 'No Response' and returns a next_action, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects beyond logging (e.g., whether driver availability changes, attempt count increments, or if any permissions are needed). This is a moderate disclosure, but gaps remain.

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 two concise sentences, immediately stating the action and its automatic side effect. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the action, the automatic log, and the return value (next_action). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns. It does not elaborate on edge cases or the full response structure, but the key context is present.

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%, so the input schema already fully describes each parameter. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline of 3.

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's function: 'Record a 30-second timeout or dropped voice call for a driver.' It uses a specific verb ('Record') with a concrete resource (driver call timeout), and the automatic logging of 'No Response' plus the returned next_action distinguishes it from siblings like update_driver_response and get_next_driver.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when a 30-second timeout or dropped voice call occurs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is clear. The mention of returning next_action: GET_NEXT_DRIVER provides context on how it fits into the workflow. Lacks explicit exclusions, so not a 5.

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