alert_me

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

Despite having no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it interrupts the user in the real world, the severity parameter alters intrusiveness (including a potential phone call for critical), and it returns a status string. This level of detail compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 efficiently structured: a core sentence, then usage guidelines in bullet-style lists, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no filler. The front-loading of the key verb and impact ensures the agent quickly grasps the purpose.

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 (multiple severity levels, real-world interruption, return value), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter meanings, and return type. The mention of a phone call for 'critical' severity is a critical behavioral detail. With an output schema present, the description is fully adequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section in the description adds rich semantic details for each parameter. For example, 'message' is described as a one-sentence lock-screen body with specificity requirements, and 'severity' outlines the exact behavior for each level, far exceeding the schema's type-only information.

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 starts with a specific verb 'buzz', a clear target 'user's phone', and an effect 'urgent push notification', immediately establishing the tool's core action. It further clarifies that this is a real-world interruption, which differentiates it from typical informational outputs.

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 provides explicit 'USE FOR' and 'DO NOT USE FOR' sections, offering clear guidance on when the tool is appropriate and when it is not. It suggests alternatives for non-urgent messages ('belong in the normal reply'), effectively helping the agent make correct decisions.

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