wake_list

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

The description frames a pure retrieval operation ('List pending wake-ups', 'where to check') with no side effects, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, i.e. it is explicitly NOT a read-only tool, and no mutation or side effect is disclosed anywhere in the text. This is a direct inconsistency with the annotations, so per the rubric it scores 1. (The description does otherwise add useful lifecycle detail, but the contradiction governs.)

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('List pending wake-ups in this project'), then layers the secondary payload detail. The parenthetical field list is dense but earns its place since there is no output schema to document the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned delivery-state fields (typed_at, held_at/held_reason, confirmation, delivery_method, delivered_by, socket_attempt_at) and explaining the pending-vs-delivered lifecycle. The one missing piece is any disclosure of the non-read-only behavior implied by the annotations.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%: the schema already explains the project_id scope override in detail. The description only echoes this with 'in this project', so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema carries the semantic load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List pending wake-ups in this project') plus the secondary collection ('recently_delivered'), which is concrete enough to separate it from wake_get/wake_cancel. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'recently_delivered is where to check whether it was actually typed and, if its target has a confirmation channel, acknowledged' tells the agent when to consult this tool's second collection, and the note that a one-shot wake leaves the pending list the moment it fires explains why a now-missing wake should be looked up here. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, so 4.

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