appium_alert

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

The description discloses the behavioral split between mutating actions (accept/dismiss) and a read action (get_text), which adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It does not contradict the annotations and gives a clear idea of the tool's side effects.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and the key action syntax. Every element earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 relatively simple tool with one required enum parameter, the description plus schema covers the main invocation patterns. It does not mention error cases like what happens if no alert is present, but that is arguably beyond the core need for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the meaning of the action values by noting that get_text reads alert text, but it does not add details about sessionId or buttonLabel beyond the schema.

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 a specific operation ('Handle system alerts') and enumerates the exact actions available: accept, dismiss, and get_text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like appium_get_text by scoping the operation to system alerts rather than generic element text.

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 the tool: whenever a system alert needs to be accepted, dismissed, or its text read. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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