get_vibrate_integration_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one key behavior: 'NO SDK installation - tap is global object'. However, it lacks details about authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value, especially the front-loaded usage directive. Some redundancy in listing synonyms for vibrate, but overall well-structured and not excessively verbose.

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?

For a guide tool with no output schema, the description states it returns a 'complete step-by-step workflow' and highlights a critical fact (no SDK). However, it does not detail the content of the guide (e.g., code examples, troubleshooting) which would improve completeness. The tool is simple, but more detail would be beneficial.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (complete step-by-step workflow) beyond the empty schema, but since no parameters exist, additional parameter details are not relevant.

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 returns a step-by-step workflow for vibrate/haptic feedback integration, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly targeting vibrate-related queries and instructing to use this tool first for such topics.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS TOOL FIRST' and 'Call this BEFORE making any implementation plans', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It lists many related keywords (vibrate, vibration, haptic feedback) and implies alternatives for other topics.

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