fx_alert_state

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 communicates that the tool returns the text of an open native dialog, implying a read-only state query, but it does not disclose what happens when no dialog is open, whether it waits for a dialog, or any edge-case behavior. The absence of side-effect information is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise, with a single short phrase and no filler. It is front-loaded and readable, though the missing verb makes it slightly less self-contained than an ideal definition.

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 zero-parameter state query with no output schema, the description gives the core idea but omits useful context like return value behavior when no dialog is present and the fact that this is a non-mutating read. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully self-contained and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 identifies the resource ('open native dialog') and the specific datum returned ('Text'), which is clear enough to distinguish this state query from the action siblings fx_alert_accept and fx_alert_dismiss. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Return', so it reads as a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'open native dialog' implies a precondition, but the description does not state that this should be used when you need the current alert text, nor does it mention that fx_alert_accept/dismiss are actions rather than state reads.

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