SINT Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions sending a notification with an optional button, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or how the notification is delivered (e.g., pop-up, log). For a tool with potential user impact, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Send a proactive notification to the operator') and adds the optional feature concisely. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (notifications with interactive buttons), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like delivery method, user response handling, or error conditions. For a tool that could affect user experience, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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 schema already documents both parameters (message and action) thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the button is 'actionable' and attached to the notification, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'send' and resource 'proactive notification to the operator', specifying it can include an 'actionable button'. It distinguishes from siblings like sint__speak (which might be for speech output) or sint__show_hud (which might be for visual displays), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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. It mentions the optional button feature but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., for urgent alerts, user interactions, or system updates) or exclusions. With many sibling tools available, this omission leaves the agent without context for selection.

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