power_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's 'read-only' is redundant. It adds the conditional 'ATX detail where the driver has it', but this is vague and does not explain what the detail contains or how the profile parameter affects behavior.

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 sentence with 19 words, front-loaded with the main action. However, 'read-only' at the end is redundant given the annotations, making it slightly less earned than a fully optimized concise description.

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 read tool, the description gives the core behavior but omits the meaning of the 'profile' parameter and any description of the return format, especially since there is no output schema. The ATX detail is ambiguous, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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?

There is one parameter, 'profile', with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its meaning and effect completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 tool returns the host's power state, using the verb 'Return' to indicate a query operation. It also mentions ATX detail, distinguishing it from control tools like 'power' or 'wake'. The read-only qualifier reinforces its query-only purpose.

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 read-only parenthetical implies it is for checking state rather than changing it, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'power' or 'wake'. It lacks direct exclusionary guidance or named sibling alternatives.

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