raise_attention

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool writes a non-blocking attention, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, state changes, permissions, or what happens after the attention is written. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with 11 required parameters and no annotation support, this is too terse to be considered well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete for an 11-parameter, 11-required tool. It omits parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and usage context, and the large sibling list suggests more guidance is needed to help an agent choose and invoke this tool 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%, and the description compensates very little. It hints that 'level' may be yellow or green and that 'run' maps to run_id, but 11 required parameters such as actor_id, actor_role, dedupe_key, reason_code, why_now, recommended_action, and source_event_ids are left completely unexplained.

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 identifies a specific action ('write'), a specific resource ('Attention for a run'), and a key qualifier ('non-blocking yellow or green'). This is more specific than the tool name alone and helps differentiate it from siblings like request_intervention or raise_deviation, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 such as request_intervention, raise_deviation, or get_attention_board. The phrase 'non-blocking' implies a contrast with blocking actions, but no explicit context, conditions, or exclusions are given.

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