wake_mode

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that gated filters small talk, that the transcript always retains everything, and that 'all' consumes roughly four times the turns—critical behavioral implications.

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?

Efficient, front-loaded statement with no filler; each sentence adds distinct value.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for invocation: semantics of both modes, default behavior, cost, and relationship to transcript. No further detail is needed.

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 description richly explains the 'mode' enum values ('all' with no gating, 'gated' as default with small talk held back), but does not mention the optional 'session' parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates for the key parameter but leaves session unexplained.

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 uses the verb 'Switch' with a clear object ('how much of the meeting reaches you') and explains the two modes ('all' and 'gated') with their intended use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like chat_reply or speak.

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?

Explicitly states when to use 'all' (dense calls like interviews/negotiations) and that 'gated' is the default for holding back small talk; also notes the cost difference, giving clear selection criteria.

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