pulse_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action ('Perform a pulse effect'). It doesn't describe what a pulse effect does (e.g., flashing lights with color transitions), whether it's destructive, requires authentication (implied by token parameter but not stated), has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential context (e.g., that this affects LIFX lights) and doesn't use its brevity to convey meaningful guidance, making it ineffective despite its short length.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, behavioral implications, or usage relative to siblings, leaving the agent with inadequate information to invoke it correctly despite the well-documented schema.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3. However, it doesn't compensate for any gaps since there are none in the schema.

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 'Perform a pulse effect' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what resource is affected or what the effect entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling effects like 'breathe_effect' or clarify that it operates on LIFX lights, leaving the purpose vague beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'breathe_effect' or 'activate_scene'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios without external knowledge.

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