timegate_onoff_screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose scope (all five independent 128×128 screens are switched together) and the hardware restriction, but says nothing about auth expectations, whether the state persists, or what happens if some screens fail to respond.

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?

Three terse clauses: action plus parameter meaning first, capability/hardware scope second, reference pointer last. No filler and the critical constraint is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes, on which hardware, and where to get more detail. Failure behavior and the required localToken are the only meaningful omissions, and the token is handled by the schema.

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?

onOff is the only required parameter and the schema gives it no description or enum, so "onOff=1 on and 0 off" adds the meaning the schema lacks. The target and localToken semantics are already documented in the schema (67% coverage), so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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?

Names a concrete verb and resource ("Switch all screens") and immediately scopes it to TimeGate Hardware 400/402, which distinguishes it from the pixoo64_onoff_screen and watchface_onoff_screen siblings. It never names the alternative to use for other hardware, so it stops just short of a clean 5.

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?

"TimeGate Hardware 400/402 only" is an explicit precondition for use, and the pointer to divoom://timegate/guide gives the agent further context. There is no explicit when-not statement or named fallback tool, but the hardware gate effectively excludes the non-applicable cases.

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