flash_lights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: auto-waking the vehicle if asleep. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as whether the command is asynchronous, potential failure modes, or the effect of the wait_for_completion parameter. This is adequate but not rich for a command 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the auto-wake nuance with a dash. Every word contributes value, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 simple command tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the primary action and an important behavioral aspect (auto-wake). It could mention async behavior or retries, but the parameter names hint at these, making the description sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

All three parameters (vin, max_attempts, wait_for_completion) are fully described in the input schema, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Flashes the vehicle's lights.' This is a specific verb and resource. The added note about auto-waking distinguishes it from sibling tools like honk (which produces sound) and wake_vehicle (which only wakes the vehicle), 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 implies when to use this tool: to flash the vehicle's lights. The phrase 'auto-wakes if asleep' provides context that it can be used even when the vehicle is asleep, eliminating the need to call wake_vehicle first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or mention situations where this tool should not be used.

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