pushonly_wake_pusher

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

With no annotations, the description provides a key behavioral trait: it never writes source-of-truth state or executes work. However, it does not cover error conditions, side effects, or auth requirements. The description is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 two sentences, each providing distinct value: the first defines the action, the second adds a critical constraint. No superfluous words. Perfectly concise.

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 having 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to use the parameters, the overall workflow, or how this tool fits with siblings like pushonly_api or igniteonly_api. An agent would likely need more guidance.

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?

All 16 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required to since the schema is complete.

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 consumes a verified IgniteOnly wake packet and emits a PushOnly worker envelope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself by stating it never writes state or executes work, setting it apart from sibling tools that may do so.

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 the tool should be used when a verified IgniteOnly wake packet is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like igniteonly_api or pushonly_api. There is no when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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