alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It discloses the 90-second timeout and that accept/dismiss mutate the active alert state, which is useful safety-relevant context. It does not describe behavior when no alert is present or other side effects, but the core behavioral traits are present.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The action-resource statement is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and a timeout warning. Every sentence contributes information that is not already present in the structured fields.

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, four actions, and no output schema, the description omits return-value and outcome behavior: what get returns, what happens on timeout, and whether wait yields the alert text are left unstated. The timeout and mutation warnings help, but an agent still has to infer important response semantics.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping the action enum values to concrete verbs (inspect/wait/accept/dismiss) and by advising get before state-changing actions. Selector parameters are left to the schema, which is acceptable given their existing descriptions.

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 names a specific resource (platform alert) and a set of verbs (inspect, wait for, accept, dismiss) that map directly to the action enum. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get or wait, and 'Use get before acting' could be slightly ambiguous about whether it means the alert tool's own get action or a sibling tool.

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 gives explicit internal sequencing guidance: call get before acting when alert content matters, and warns that accept and dismiss change the active alert state. It does not discuss when to prefer sibling tools over alert, but for a specialized alert command the situational guidance is clear.

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