trigger_test_alarm

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency burden. It warns about responsible use but omits important details like whether the alarm auto-stops, required permissions, or what happens after execution (e.g., return value).

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 well-structured with sections, emojis, and bullet points. It is slightly verbose but efficiently front-loads purpose and safety warnings. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters but lacks return value information, prerequisites (device online?), and post-execution behavior, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: device_id format, alarm_type enum with descriptions, duration_seconds range (5-60), and volume range (50-100%). Adds significant value beyond input schema defaults.

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 tool's purpose: 'Trigger real alarm sounds on your Nest Protect devices for testing purposes.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and is distinct from siblings like hush_active_alarm which silences alarms.

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 includes safety notes and implies usage for testing only, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_safety_test' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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