toggle_idle_inhibitor

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the effect is a binary prevent/allow of idle timeout, but omits key behavior for a toggle: that each call flips state, whether the inhibition persists indefinitely, and that no status-read counterpart exists.

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?

A single compact sentence with the effect front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a state-mutating toggle, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive tool with annotations covering safety, little is strictly required, and no output schema is needed. However, the description never resolves whether calling it twice returns to the original state or how the agent can verify the current inhibition status, leaving a real operational gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of a duration or explicit on/off argument is consistent with the empty schema.

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 resource (screen timeout / idle inhibition) and the two resulting states (prevent vs. allow), which is clear enough to act on. It does not explicitly say this is a single flip-toggle nor distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_screen_timeout or set_monitor_dpms.

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 offers no guidance on when to invoke this versus alternatives like set_monitor_dpms or get_screen_timeout, and no prerequisites or typical scenarios (e.g., watching video, long downloads) are given. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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