alert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that each iOS XCTest execution 'activates once, then only observes,' that the tool 'Times out after 90s,' and that accept/dismiss change state. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema conveys. It does not describe the return format or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, and finally behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is compact and well-ordered.

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 tool with 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: action selection, state changes, timeout behavior, and the execution model. It lacks information about the response format, but given the schema's high coverage and the tool's specific scope, this is a minor gap. It is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the action semantics ('Use get before acting...'), but the schema's enum for action already explains the possible values. Since the schema covers the parameters well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for low coverage.

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 core function: 'Inspect, wait for, accept, or dismiss a platform alert.' It names the resource (platform alert) and the specific verbs (get, wait, accept, dismiss), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like 'get' or 'wait' by being alert-specific, and the action enum is explicit.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use get before acting when the alert content matters; accept and dismiss change the active alert state.' It also warns about the timeout behavior and advises to 'Inspect again after an unconfirmed action.' This gives clear when-to-use directives for each action and cautions against misinterpretation of timeouts, which is exactly the kind of guidance needed.

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