alert

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 that 'accept and dismiss change the active alert state', conveying that these actions are mutative, while 'get' is implied to be read-only. However, it does not describe behavior for 'wait' (e.g., timeout), permissions, or error cases, leaving gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase earns its place. The description is concise and does not repeat schema details.

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 26 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core actions and the key state-change caveat, but does not explain what 'get' returns, how 'wait' behaves, or any output format. Still, given the high schema coverage, this is adequate but with 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?

Schema coverage is high (92%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'action' enum values (get, accept, dismiss, wait) beyond what the schema provides, explaining their roles and relationships. This lifts the score above baseline.

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 purpose: 'Inspect, wait for, accept, or dismiss a platform alert.' This is a specific verb+resource combo that distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, press, or type. The active state change language clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 guidance on when to use 'get' versus 'accept' and 'dismiss': 'Use get before acting when the alert content matters; accept and dismiss change the active alert state.' This gives a clear usage pattern, though it does not discuss when to use 'wait' or when not to use the tool.

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