pikvm_auto_calibrate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool moves the mouse multiple times, compares screenshots, blocks other tools, and computes calibration factors. This covers key behavioral traits, though it could mention duration or whether it writes calibration data.

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?

Three sentences are efficient and front-loaded: first states purpose, second adds advantage, third describes process and constraint. No redundant information.

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 7 optional parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, process, and blocking behavior. It could mention the output (e.g., calibration factors stored), but remains reasonably complete for a complex tool.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. All parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the tool description does not provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the purpose: automatically calibrate mouse coordinates via screenshot diffing. It distinguishes from manual calibration, mentions the process (moves mouse, compares screenshots, computes factors), and uses specific verb+resource. Siblings like pikvm_calibrate are differentiated.

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?

Description notes it is more accurate than manual calibration, implying preferred usage. It also warns that other tools are blocked during calibration, providing a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implicit comparison to manual.

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