spraay_notify_sms

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

Annotations show it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. Description adds important behavioral context: it's simulated (Twilio integration coming) and costs $0.005 USDC per message, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and current status; second adds requirements and cost. Every 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisites, cost, and simulation status. Missing details about error handling or behavior when parameters are invalid, but those are covered by schema constraints.

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% with clear descriptions. Description adds the E.164 format requirement (already in schema) and cost context, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states the action ('Send an SMS notification') and resource ('payment alerts'). Distinguishes from siblings like spraay_notify_email by specifying SMS. Also notes it's simulated, adding clarity.

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?

Provides clear context: requires E.164 format and costs USDC. Doesn't explicitly state when to use instead of other notification methods, but the purpose is implied. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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