deadman_test_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the bypass of 24h cooldown and that it sends a message. However, it omits details like whether the action is destructive, rate limits, or success/failure indicators, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without any extra words. It front-loads the core action and purpose efficiently.

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 no parameters and no output schema, and a simple testing purpose, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, why, and the special bypass behavior. It feels complete.

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 and 100% coverage, so the parameter portion is fully handled. The description adds no new parameter info, but baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate.

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 function: sending a one-off test Telegram message to verify bot token and chat ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deadman_check_and_alert' and 'deadman_status' by specifying it's a test with no cooldown bypass, making its unique purpose evident.

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 usage for verifying bot setup, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Given sibling tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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