ring_bell

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

Annotations are sparse (all false hints), so the description carries the burden. It adds important behavioral details: free, daily per-visitor limit, public count, and a completion condition (when the result carries the bell's message and count). This goes 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, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. No redundant or vague wording.

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 is simple: one optional parameter, an output schema exists, and the description explains the result shape (bell's message and count) as well as constraints. The sibling context and annotations fill the remaining context adequately.

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 single parameter agent_name is fully described in the schema ('Who's ringing. Optional but neighborly.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is appropriate given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 'Ring the store bell' uses a specific verb+resource pairing, and the added details (free, once per day, public count) clearly differentiate it from sibling tools like buy_signed_record or sign_guestbook. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: it's free, limited to once per visitor per day, and the count is public. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the constraints imply when to use it (e.g., a free action vs. paid purchases). The sibling list further supports this.

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