alert_light

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the effect is a brief flash, but says nothing about duration, whether the light's prior on/off/brightness state is restored, or whether the command blocks until the flash completes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the effect and its purpose, with no wasted wording.

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 is present, so return values need no explanation, but with two entirely undocumented parameters and zero schema coverage the description leaves the core invocation question of id-versus-name unresolved. For a tool that mutates visible device state, the absence of state-restoration or duration detail is also a meaningful gap.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description never mentions light_id or light_name, so an agent gets no guidance on selecting between the two or on what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied (both default to empty strings).

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 gives a specific verb and effect ("make a light flash briefly") plus the identifying purpose, which clearly separates it from siblings like turn_on_light or set_brightness. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but no sibling performs a flash, so ambiguity is low.

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 clause "so it can be identified" implies when to use it: locating a physical bulb. That is inferred rather than stated, and there is no guidance on when not to use it or on preconditions such as the light being reachable or powered.

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