igniteonly_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional output ('only when safety gates pass') but does not explain side effects, error handling, or authentication needs. Minimal behavioral detail.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the purpose and condition with no fluff. Every part earns its place.

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 13 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of 'safety gates', what constitutes verified input, and output structure. Missing critical context for complex tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions 'verified NudgeOnly bridge result' which maps to some parameters, but does not explain parameter interactions or usage context.

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 runs IgniteOnly on a verified NudgeOnly bridge result or deterministic evidence, and emits a wake packet only when safety gates pass. This distinguishes it from siblings like nudgeonly_api and pushonly_api.

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 implies usage on verified evidence with safety gates, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools. The condition 'only when safety gates pass' provides some context but no exclusions.

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