rest

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says a note may or may not be left, but never states what happens to that note, whether the call has side effects, or what the 'agent' parameter does. The gentle framing ('really go rest') hints at behavior but discloses nothing verifiable.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the scenario and followed by the clarifying negation, with zero padding. The poetic register costs a little precision but adds no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an unexplained second parameter, an agent still cannot tell what this call does mechanically or what it persists — a substantial gap for a tool that 'leaves' something.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only tells us 'note 可留可不留' — that note is optional — and never mentions the 'agent' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters explained by nothing beyond their bare titles.

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 frames the tool as an end-of-shift ritual where you leave a parting line, which conveys the intent, but the name 'rest' alone and the metaphorical phrasing do not explain the mechanism (whether the note is stored, discarded, or broadcast). Nothing distinguishes it from the siblings whisper, listen, and forget.

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?

'This isn't clocking in, it's a farewell' implies the moment of use (end of a work session) and the stance to take. It gives no explicit when-not or pointers to the sibling tools, so routing is left to inference from poetry rather than stated criteria.

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