Chinese-screen parameter lists

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it explains that omitted fields default to 0, that cut-current turns output off after about 6 seconds below the threshold, that cut-time is based on accumulated on-time, and when select is refused. It does not describe the success response or whether writing a list affects other lists, so it is not exhaustive.

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 three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and field semantics, and the parentheticals are compact. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool, though the select-refusal clause is somewhat compressed.

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 9-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers list semantics, defaults, select behavior, and the Chinese-screen precondition. It leaves return/confirmation behavior and some error semantics to inference, but it is substantially complete.

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 coverage is high at 78%, with units and ranges already documented, and the description adds meaning for cut_current (0 = off), cut_time (accumulated on-time), select (sent after the values and subject to refusal), and omission defaults. It does not add detail for max_wall beyond the schema, which is acceptable.

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 names a specific write operation ('Write one of the five parameter lists') and scopes it to the Chinese screen, enumerating the values that the list contains. It makes clear that this is a distinct resource (lists 0..4) rather than a general set operation.

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?

It states that the lists are used by the Chinese screen and that the registers act only while that screen is shown, and it gives select refusal conditions. It does not explicitly route the agent between this tool and siblings such as set, so alternative selection guidance is the main gap.

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