flipper_find_my_flipper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the three output modalities (sound, backlight, vibro), providing a transparent view of what occurs. It does not mention duration or termination behavior, but for such a simple tool, disclosing the core effect is adequate.

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, compact sentence that communicates the action, the method, and the purpose without any redundant words. It is perfectly concise.

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 (no parameters, clear output), and the description fully covers what it does and why. The presence of an output schema handles the return value documentation. The description also differentiates from siblings by combining modalities, making it contextually complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter semantics. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't attempt to document parameters, which is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Play an audiovisual alert (sound + backlight + vibro) to locate the device.' It uses a specific verb ('play') and resource (the device), and the combined modalities differentiate it from sibling tools like flipper_led and flipper_vibro, which each handle a single output.

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 implies the tool is for locating a lost or misplaced device, which is a clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the combination of sound, backlight, and vibro naturally indicates it's the all-in-one option compared to single-mode siblings. This is sufficient for a simple command.

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