igniteonly_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conditional behavior ('only when safety gates pass') and mentions the output, but does not elaborate on side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or auth requirements. Adequate but shallow.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and output condition. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value. Excellent structure.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description does not guide the agent on how parameters interact or which are typically required. It lacks information about return values or typical usage patterns, leaving the agent under-informed for invocation.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds minimal beyond the schema, merely referencing 'verified NudgeOnly bridge result' which maps to some parameters. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('IgniteOnly'), clearly stating it operates on a verified NudgeOnly bridge result or deterministic evidence. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'safety gates' and the output being a 'compact public worker wake packet', making the tool's purpose distinct.

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 says when to use: 'on a verified NudgeOnly bridge result or deterministic evidence'. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative sibling tools like 'nudgeonly_api' or 'pushonly_api'.

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