alarm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the escalation mechanism (silent push alarm then voice call), the retry/repeat behavior tied to callAttempts, and that the caller decides whether to retry ('one call = one escalation'). It omits what happens on final failure or how acknowledgement is signaled, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the severity gate and escalation path, with the sibling alternative placed early. Slightly dense but every sentence carries distinct scope or behavioral information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 8 parameters, the description supplies the severity gate, escalation and retry behavior, and the sibling alternative. It leaves timeout parameter behavior to the schema, but the core invocation context an agent needs is present.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-cutting meaning beyond the schema: it links callAttempts to the escalation loop and clarifies that repeat calls continue 'until acknowledged.' It does not explain waitForResult or maxWaitSeconds, so it does not reach 5.

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?

States a specific action (rings the owner's phone via silent push then voice call) and names the exact triggering conditions (production down, data loss, security). Explicitly routes everything else to the sibling notify_user, so it is distinguishable without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusive criterion ('only for incidents that need the human NOW') and names the alternative ('Prefer notify_user for everything else'), leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool. No when-not exclusions are missing given the severity bar is stated.

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