page_oncall

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only discloses that credentials are injected by the gateway and are invisible to the agent. It does not disclose the salient side effect (interrupting a human), whether the call blocks, whether repeated pages are throttled, or what is returned. For an alerting mutation this is a substantial 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?

One compact sentence with the key constraint parenthesized immediately after the action, so nothing is buried. It earns its brevity, though the space saved is not reinvested in any operational detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero documented parameters, the description is too thin: the agent cannot tell when to invoke it, what to put in the message, or what happens on invocation. Only the auth-injection detail is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required 'message' parameter is never explained. There is no guidance on what the message should contain (severity, service name, symptom, link), which is exactly what the description should compensate for at this coverage level.

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 states a specific verb and resource: page (呼叫) the on-call engineer. That is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling tool. It stops short of the top score because it offers no differentiation from notification-like siblings such as send_email, which an agent might reasonably choose instead.

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 never says when paging is appropriate: no urgency threshold, no escalation condition, no 'use send_email instead for non-urgent'. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name.

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