deadman_check_and_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the alert condition and cooldown, but does not disclose side effects, whether it resets any state, idempotency, or error handling. Partially transparent but missing some behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main action and condition, the second adds essential configuration context. Highly efficient.

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?

While the description covers the core behavior and configuration, it does not describe the return value, behavior when conditions are not met, or error scenarios. For a tool with no parameters or output schema, more context about outcomes would be beneficial.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter details. According to guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4, as no additional information is needed.

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 forces a dead-man check and conditionally sends a Telegram alert. It distinguishes from siblings 'deadman_status' and 'deadman_test_alert' by focusing on forcing the check and alerting based on specific conditions.

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 implies when to use the tool (force a check and potentially alert) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The condition for alerting is clear, but no guidance on comparing with 'deadman_status' or 'deadman_test_alert'.

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