projector_brightness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the setting persists, which output is targeted when multiple projectors exist, or what happens if the projector is asleep, and the 0-255 range it mentions is already in the schema.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the '(0-255)' parenthetical duplicates the schema and thus doesn't earn its place. Efficient overall.

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 one-param setter with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits error/edge behavior (no projector present, projector asleep) and any indication of the resulting state, which would be the only value it could add here.

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% with a single documented 'level' parameter (0-255), so the description's range restatement is redundant rather than additive. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 verb and resource ('Set the projector screen brightness') plus the value range, so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the system-brightness siblings (set_brightness, increase_brightness), leaving the agent to infer 'projector' vs. display scope from the name alone.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g., projector must be awake/connected), and never names an alternative such as set_brightness or projector_wake. Usage is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description text.

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