wake_list

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 explains meaningful traits: one-shot wakes leave the pending list the moment they fire, recently_delivered is limited to the last 10, and delivery state includes typed_at, held_at/held_reason, and confirmation. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the description strongly implies it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose. Both sentences carry essential information about behavior and delivery state without extraneous content.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only list tool: it names the pending list, the recently_delivered section, its size cap, and the delivery-state fields. Since there is no output schema, it would benefit from a bit more detail on the exact shape of pending wake entries, but an agent has enough to select and 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already fully documents project_id, including the 'only when explicitly asked' rule.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List pending wake-ups in this project', and further clarifies what it additionally includes ('recently_delivered'). It distinguishes itself from the single-wake sibling tools by describing its list-oriented scope and the special recently_delivered section.

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 clear context for when to use this tool, especially for checking whether a one-shot wake actually fired and whether it was acknowledged. It does not explicitly name alternatives like wake_get or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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