signal_off

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key nuance: the operation depends on the mast's 'can be unlit' setting, and JMRI accepting 'lit' does not guarantee unlit capability. This goes beyond basic schema and provides valuable context about potential failures.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then the argument semantics, and ends with a critical caveat. Every sentence provides valuable information without 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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, parameter details, and a critical limitation. It does not describe return values, but these are not specified in any output schema. It could be considered slightly incomplete regarding what a successful result looks like, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 only defines 'name' as a string. The description compensates thoroughly with schema coverage at 0%, explaining that the name can be a system name, userName, or an unambiguous fragment, and that it is case-insensitive. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Darken a signal mast' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly identifies the tool as a 'shortcut for set_signal(name, "off")', distinguishing it from the more general sibling tool set_signal.

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 presents the tool as a shortcut, implying it should be used for quickly darkening a signal mast instead of invoking set_signal with the 'off' argument. It also warns about the dependency on the 'can be unlit' setting. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast with other alternatives beyond set_signal.

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