Send to Poke

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the inbound webhook, but does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, reducing the burden, yet the description contributes little beyond that.

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, focused sentence of ten words, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise.

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?

The combination of the concise description, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema provides sufficient context for an agent to use this tool correctly. However, the description could briefly mention prerequisites such as webhook configuration, so a 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so a baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 identifies the action ('Send'), the target ('a message to Poke'), and the mechanism ('inbound webhook'). It is unambiguous and sufficiently specific, and with no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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 provides clear context for usage—sending a message to Poke—but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Since there are no sibling tools, this is not a major omission, but the absence of explicit usage conditions prevents a 5.

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