timegate_send_text

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose hardware-conditional behavior (400 sends LcdIndex; 402 reads LcdId), font/height constraints (fonts 0–7, 16-pixel height independent of display-list fonts), and device scope. It does not say what happens when a TextId slot is reused, whether it overwrites existing text, or how errors surface.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and constraint, then hardware and font notes and a pointer to the guide; every sentence carries technical content. The telegraphic phrasing ('400 sends LcdIndex; 402 source reads LcdId') is dense to the point of being cryptic but wastes no space.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description covers device gating, prerequisites, font/height rules, and a fallback reference document. Missing pieces are slot/overwrite semantics for TextId and how text is removed afterward (timegate_clear_text is unmentioned).

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description clarifies lcdIndex (must be the animation's first selected screen) and constrains font to the animation range, which the schema only bounds numerically. However, TextId (0–19 slot semantics), TextWidth, x/y, dir, align, speed, and color get no explanation in either schema or description. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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 ('Add text to an already active HTTP animation') and immediately scopes it to TimeGate 400/402 hardware with five 128×128 screens. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling alternative send_items type 22 for regular custom dials, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

Provides a real prerequisite ('already active' animation, lcdIndex must be the first selected screen) and names the alternative for the other case (send_items type 22 for regular custom dials). It stops short of exclusions such as when to use timegate_clear_text or what to do when no animation is running, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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