pushonly_wake_pusher

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'never writes source-of-truth state or executes the work,' which is good. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or any other behavioral nuances.

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 very concise at two sentences, with the action front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate purpose and behavioral notes), but it remains efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (16 parameters, all optional, no output schema, nested objects) and the domain context, the description is too brief. It lacks information about the output envelope, error scenarios, dependence on prior steps, and how it fits into the larger workflow with related tools like igniteonly_api.

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, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline expectation. No parameter-specific guidance is given.

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's action: consume a verified IgniteOnly wake packet and emit a PushOnly worker envelope. It also specifies what it does NOT do (never writes state or executes work). However, the domain-specific terms like 'IgniteOnly wake packet' and 'PushOnly worker envelope' may require additional context.

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 when a verified IgniteOnly wake packet is available and a PushOnly envelope is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like pushonly_api or pushonly_policy. There are no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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