alert_flash

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 the key behavior of restoring original state, which is valuable. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as whether lights must be on, permissions required, or side effects beyond the flash.

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 the purpose stated in the first sentence and parameter descriptions immediately following. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the core action and state restoration. It is nearly complete, though adding usage guidance would make it fully robust.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'flashes' is the number of alert flashes (default 5) and 'light_names' is an optional list. This adds some context but does not fully describe parameter semantics, e.g., what constitutes a valid light name or the range of flashes.

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 it performs an urgent attention-getting flash at max brightness and restores original state. It distinguishes from siblings like flash_lights and pulse_lights by emphasizing urgency, but does not explicitly differentiate from all similar tools.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives like flash_lights, celebrate, or dim_for_attention. The phrase 'urgent attention-getting' implies a use case but lacks clear context or exclusions.

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