test_wake_activation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions manual triggering but does not explain side effects, timing, or dependencies (e.g., whether wake must be enabled first, or what happens if it fails). This is insufficient for a tool that likely triggers a state change.

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: a single sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description is adequate but not thorough. It does not explain what the 'wake activation sequence' entails or provide context on expected results or prerequisites. For a testing utility, it is minimally acceptable but could be improved with behavioral notes.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter info. It correctly conveys that the tool requires no inputs, which aligns with the schema. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 action ('Manually trigger'), the resource ('wake activation sequence'), and the context ('for testing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_wake_enabled or set_wake_pending by specifying a manual testing trigger.

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 phrase 'for testing' provides implicit guidance that this tool is not for production use, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or suggest alternatives like debug_wake_pipeline or set_wake_pending. More explicit usage boundaries would improve the score.

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