switch_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'turn on or off' and parameter hints, but omits details like side effects, error behavior (e.g., switch not found), return format, or safety considerations. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then define parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool is simple (two parameters, no nested objects) and an output schema exists (so return info is covered), the description provides sufficient context for typical use. A minor gap is not specifying behavior for invalid inputs, but this is partially addressed by the parameter examples.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the description adds essential meaning: the 'name' parameter is a partial or full name with examples, and 'action' is 'on' or 'off'. This compensates well, though it could include more details like case sensitivity or valid characters.

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 turns a light switch on or off, with a direct verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ping (network), get_device_status (status), lock_door, and set_temperature by specifying light switches.

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 implies usage for light switch control but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions (e.g., prerequisites, when not to use it). The context of sibling tools helps, but the description itself lacks such guidance.

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