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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows mutation is possible, yet the description never warns which action (reset) is destructive or whether changes are reversible. The only genuine behavioral addition is that 'preview always shows neutral, listening, thinking, and success', which is a useful but narrow disclosure for a tool with seven mutating actions.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the resource scope is stated before the operation list. The seven-verb enumeration is dense but appropriately compact; slightly better ordering would front-load the object before the verbs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for an 11-parameter, seven-action tool the description omits prerequisites (e.g. must an approved profile exist before activate?), the preview/approve/activate lifecycle, and any mapping between actions and required optional parameters. The gaps are substantial for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, and the description explains none of them — not accent, gaze_style, blink_style, signature_message, nor which optional fields each action requires or ignores. It contributes only the action verb names, which the schema enum already provides.

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?

It names the resource ('the profile bound to the stable local agent identity') and enumerates the operations in verb form, so an agent knows this tool manages the agent's own identity profile rather than some other resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like face_status or face_capabilities, which would be needed for a 5.

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 lists the seven actions but gives no guidance on when to choose each one, what order they belong in (e.g. create → preview → approve → activate), or when this tool should not be used instead of the sibling face tools. The action list merely mirrors the schema enum, so no usage value is added.

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

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation of device state. The description adds real context beyond that: the expression is 'temporary' and 'the firmware owns animation,' which tells the agent it cannot control animation details. It omits whether a new expression replaces a currently displayed one, and does not explain the non-idempotent hint (each call produces a fresh expression).

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The second sentence is a dense conditional worth keeping, though it assumes the reader already understands what a 'sequence' is without ever defining it.

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 15-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, this description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the parameter surface and the effect of combining sequence with affect/message/priority are largely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess at correct invocation.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to: it explains only the sequence/message interaction. affect, gaze, ttl_ms, warmth, urgency, autonomy, priority, intensity, text_mode, confidence, behavior_mode, gaze_aversion, and cause are left entirely to enum literals and defaults, with no explanation of how they interact or which are overridden by a sequence.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Show one temporary semantic expression on the local face.' That is far more informative than the bare name 'express' and its title. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like perform or neutral, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the three to pick.

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?

One explicit conditional rule is provided: 'When sequence is set, omit message so the device can perform its coordinated eye/OLED beat.' That is genuinely useful invocation guidance. There is no guidance on when to use express versus perform, neutral, or the face_* siblings, so routing remains inferred.

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

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond those. It does so by noting that the tool describes connection state and limits, which is behaviorally relevant to an agent deciding whether local state might be stale or constrained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item adds meaningful detail about what the tool returns, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read-only introspection tool. The annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return structure, and the description enumerates the main content areas. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain argument semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and no information is missing on this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') with a clear resource ('YouAndEye capabilities') and enumerates the exact content categories: affects, sequences, channels, limits, and local connection state. This sets it apart from sibling tools like express, face_status, and neutral, which are action/status-oriented.

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 this tool is used to discover what the system supports and its connection state, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a simple read-only capability query, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing which specific status fields are read, though it does not discuss connection semantics or potential error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists exactly what the tool reads. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers the key status areas an agent would need to decide whether to call this tool, and no additional behavioral context is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('YouAndEye status'), and enumerates the exact status dimensions: connection, active expression, eye renderer, mouth mode, frame timing, and misses. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like express, face_capabilities, or neutral, but the read-versus-action distinction is evident from the wording.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The read-only framing implies it is appropriate for checking state rather than changing it, but the description does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

The description adds concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clears pending expressions and restores a safe autonomous neutral face immediately. This complements the idempotentHint and clarifies that the operation has a calming/reset effect rather than a persistent destructive one.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and states the immediate result. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of the title.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It explains the operation, the effect, and the safety-oriented outcome, so an agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description accurately describes the tool's action without any parameter ambiguity.

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 uses specific verbs ('Clear', 'restore') and a clear resource ('pending expressions', 'safe autonomous neutral face'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like express, face_status, and face_capabilities by describing a state-resetting 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when there are pending expressions that should be cleared and the face should return to neutral. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is unmistakable from the action described.

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

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive call. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral disclosure: YouAndEye owns timing, transitions, scrolling completion, and neutral return, which tells the agent it should not try to time beats itself. It does not disclose what cancel does to an in-flight sequence, what status returns, or how interrupt_policy=reject behaves, all of which matter for a stateful performance tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the three action verbs are front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly cryptic ('neutral return' is undefined) but the overall shape is efficient and the reader gets the gist immediately.

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 7-parameter, zero-coverage, stateful mutation tool with nested beat objects and policies for waiting, interruption, and return, the description is far too thin. Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the action-beats relationship, the wait/interrupt/return policy semantics, and the meaning of 'bounded' (maxItems 16) are all absent. The agent is left to reverse-engineer the call contract from the schema alone.

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% for 7 parameters with 3 enums, so the description carries the full burden. It touches only 'pacing words and semantic modifiers', which loosely maps to PerceptionBeat.pace and SemanticModifiers, but leaves action, beats, wait_for_completion, wait_timeout_ms, interrupt_policy, and return_policy completely unexplained in both schema and description. An agent cannot know that action=status takes no beats or that wait_timeout_ms bounds the blocking call.

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 three verbs (start, inspect, cancel) matching the action enum and a resource ('bounded sequence of emotional beats'), which is clear conceptually. However, the tool name 'perform' and title 'Perform a semantic scene' are vague and the description does not differentiate it from siblings like express or neutral, leaving the agent to guess the boundary between a 'beat sequence' and a single expression.

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 lists the possible actions but never states when to pick perform over express, neutral, or configure_profile. There is no exclusion guidance, no prerequisite note, and no hint that 'beats' is only relevant for action=start and ignored for status/cancel. The 'Supply pacing words...' half-sentence implies a start-only context but does not say it.

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