signal_compose_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior: it does not send, it returns guidance for the user to send. However, it lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., Signal connection), what the guidance format is, or any side effects. Basic transparency is present.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's function. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important context: how the message content is determined with zero input parameters, and what the step-by-step guidance looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the deliverable format. It adequately states the outcome but leaves the mechanism ambiguous.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, there is little to explain. The phrase 'Composes a Signal message' may imply context-derived input, but that is not elaborated.

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 states the tool composes a Signal message and returns step-by-step guidance, explicitly differentiating it from tools that actually send messages (e.g., send_message, whatsapp_send_message). 'Composes' and 'guidance' make the resource and action specific.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when the user needs to send the message themselves), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it or when to prefer an actual sending tool.

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