wake

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses important behavioral details: TTL max 6h, event cap max 20, consume default true, max 5 open watches per handle, and that there is no separate ack tool. However, it does not explain what happens when a watch expires or when the event cap is reached, leaving some operational edges uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, then packs operational constraints and sibling references into a dense but readable paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though the final sentence about pending events and ack could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity of a bounded watch mechanism with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, constraints, and sibling interactions. It omits some edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens on TTL expiry), but it provides enough for an agent to invoke and manage the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions TTL and event cap defaults which are also in the schema. Baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource: 'Arm a bounded Wake: block one tool call until a Haven event matching typed skills/surfaces matters, instead of polling.' It immediately distinguishes this from siblings like wake_wait and wake_cancel by clarifying that this tool only creates the watch, not waits or cancels.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'This tool only creates the watch (no waiting, no polling).' It also directs how to block for the first event (wake_wait), end early (wake_cancel), and read back pending events (wake_wait), leaving no ambiguity about the workflow sequence.

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