expand_settings

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description's note about requiring an active scrcpy session adds some behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't add much beyond that — no mention of visual state changes, timing, or interaction with notification panel state. With annotation coverage reasonably good, an average score is fair.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and a key prerequisite. No wasted words, though it could capitalize on brevity to add a bit more operational detail without becoming verbose.

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 simple, single-parameter UI action tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient. The tool is simple enough that the one-line description plus annotations cover the use case. Slight room to improve by clarifying the relationship with the notification panel, but this is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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% — the single 'serial' parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 verb (expand) and resource (quick settings panel). It distinguishes from the sibling expand_notifications and collapse_panels by naming the specific panel. The parenthetical noting it requires an active scrcpy session adds useful context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling expand_notifications.

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 notes the prerequisite of an active scrcpy session, which gives usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus expand_notifications or collapse_panels, and sibling alternatives exist that are closely related. The 'requires active scrcpy session' clue implies the start_session prerequisite but doesn't fully spell it out.

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