wake_and_unlock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key limitation that it only dismisses non-secure lock screens, but it omits what happens on a secure device (failure mode), whether the device must be connected/awake, and any required permissions.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler that states action, mechanism, and scope constraint in one pass.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the low complexity (one optional param) keeps the description near adequate. Still, the absent annotations and undefined serial param leave the safety/state profile thin for a tool that mutates device state.

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 0% and the description never mentions the serial parameter or how it selects a target device. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare 'serial' field name, though the field is largely self-explanatory given the toolset's convention.

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 two-step action (wake the screen, swipe up to dismiss) on a clearly scoped resource (a non-secure lock screen). This distinguishes it from the generic swipe and press_power siblings, which cannot complete the unlock flow on their own.

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 qualifier 'non-secure lock screen' implicitly signals the applicability condition, so the agent can infer when it will work. However, no explicit alternative is named for secure lock screens, and there is no when/when-not guidance or mention of required device state.

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