signal_friction

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

The description discloses that the signal is anonymous and content-free, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, it does not fully explain the behavioral impact (e.g., whether it logs, notifies, or affects system state), leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place, no unnecessary information.

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?

Given no parameters, output schema, or annotations, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior. It is cut off and does not specify what happens after the signal is sent (e.g., logging, alerting), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's effect.

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 input schema has no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to describe.

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 it sends an anonymous, content-free signal specifically when an LMCP tool fails or returns nothing useful, or the user seems frustrated. This is a specific verb and resource with clear trigger conditions, differentiating it from sibling tools that perform direct actions.

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 explicitly lists conditions for use (tool failure, useless return, user frustration), providing clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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