ring_bell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the tool's action (ringing a bell through speakers), the sound effects, and that the message is returned in confirmation. It does not mention potential hardware requirements or asynchronicity, but these are minor for a simple notification tool.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, usage context, and a bulleted list of arguments with clear formatting. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has two optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema exists (not shown but noted), the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and what each parameter does. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds extensive detail: for 'sound' it lists four specific options with human-readable descriptions and mentions the default behavior; for 'message' it explains its role and what happens to it (returned in confirmation). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Ring a bell', the resource 'bell', and the purpose 'to alert the human'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_bells' which lists bells rather than ringing them.

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 when to call it: 'when a task is complete or when you need the human's attention.' It provides detailed guidance on sound options and message parameter but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though that is implicit given its simplicity.

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