send_alert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the essential behavioral trait of waiting for user response (implying blocking) and includes the constraint of maximum 3 buttons. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the dialog blocks the entire app or just the tool) or what happens if no buttons are supplied.

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 extremely concise with a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and it avoids redundant prose or filler. The format is easy to scan and understand.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core behavior and every parameter. A brief example or clarification of default_button semantics would make it more complete, but it is not essential.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning beyond the schema: 'List of button names (max 3)' introduces a max-items constraint not present in the schema, and 'Name of the default button' clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, the descriptions are terse and do not explain the relationship between buttons and default_button (e.g., default_button must be one of the buttons).

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 ('Show') and resource ('alert dialog') and adds the critical behavior 'wait for user response,' which clearly distinguishes it from passive notification tools like send_notification and list-based selection tools like choose_from_list. This is a clear and precise purpose statement.

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 for interactive prompts ('wait for user response') but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as send_notification or choose_from_list. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so an agent might not know when to prefer this tool over a notification.

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