Run Usage Alert Pass

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

Annotations already establish this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world action. The description adds context about running server-side and requiring an optional server token, which is useful auth information. However, it does not disclose side effects, asynchronicity, or response behavior beyond 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a single parameter note. No filler or redundant phrasing; each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the agent can expect after triggering the pass—whether it returns results, runs asynchronously, or produces side effects. This is missing, making the tool's runtime behavior unclear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the optional server token header but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description. No format, source, or examples are given to enrich the parameter's meaning.

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 ('Trigger') and the specific resource ('a usage alert evaluation pass on the server'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from the many sibling usage/report tools, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_report_usage_by_model or lyzr_ops_get_dashboard. It only mentions an optional header, not selection criteria or exclusions.

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