Somneo Wecker Anlegen

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), and the description usefully adds that unset parameters fall back to documented Mac-app defaults and that the state is read back. This higher-than-default behavior — repeated calls land alarms in successive free slots, which aligns with non-idempotency — is genuinely additive context.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the defaults. Each clause carries information with no filler, though the default list is dense and could be structured more readably.

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 the return-value clause is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the default fallbacks fill the biggest gap left by 0% schema coverage. Still, formats for required 'uhrzeit', the 'tage' convention and the tonquelle/an parameters are not addressed, leaving a mutation tool only partly specified.

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 carries the burden, and it partially meets it by giving defaults for brightness, light duration, light type, tone and volume (helligkeit, lichtdauer, lichttyp, klang, lautstaerke). It leaves the uhrzeit format, tage, tonquelle and an undocumented, so a meaningful portion of the 9 parameters remains ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Neuen Wecker anlegen') and adds scope detail ('im ersten freien Slot') that clarifies it creates rather than modifies an existing alarm. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (somneo_wecker_setzen), so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 create semantics imply when to use it (new alarm rather than editing an existing one), and the 'first free slot' behavior is noted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over somneo_wecker_setzen or somneo_wecker_schalten, so usage must be inferred.

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