snitch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and operational traits. It mentions actions like 'delete', 'pause', and 'update' but does not state whether delete is irreversible, whether pause stops all monitoring, or what side effects check_in has. For a tool with several state-changing and potentially destructive actions, this is a notable gap.

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 well-structured as a compact action list with consistent formatting: 'action - description. Required/Optional: params'. The opening line establishes the tool's scope, and every subsequent line provides necessary operational detail without filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 actions and 11 parameters, the description covers the essential operational aspects: actions, required/optional parameters, and valid enum-like values. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. Minor gaps remain, such as the format for 'until' or the exact content of 'alert_email', but these are partially covered by the schema's type declarations.

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 0%, and the description compensates thoroughly. It maps each action to its required/optional parameters, distinguishes between the singular 'tag' and plural 'tags', and lists valid values for interval (15_minute, hourly, etc.) and alert_type (basic, smart) that the schema does not constrain. This directly adds meaning beyond the raw property types.

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 opens with 'Manage Dead Man's Snitch monitors,' clearly specifying the domain and resource. It then enumerates all ten actions (list, get, create, update, delete, pause, unpause, check_in, add_tags, remove_tag), making the tool's purpose unambiguous even though the name 'snitch' is cryptic.

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?

Each action is paired with required and optional parameters, e.g., 'create - Create snitch. Required: name, interval' and 'list - List snitches. Optional: tags (filter)'. This effectively tells the agent which action variant to use based on available parameters. There are no sibling tools to compare against, so it cannot name alternatives; a 5 would require explicit when/when-not exclusions.

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