flipper_infrared

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

Beyond annotations (which only state readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false), the description reveals that subcommand syntax varies by firmware and that error text is returned verbatim. This adds useful behavioral context.

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 sentences cover purpose, key behavior, and error handling without redundancy. Each sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the most important 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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, subcommand variance, and error behavior. It references a sibling tool for further capabilities, enhancing completeness. However, it does not describe success returns or all possible subcommands.

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 description adds context to the action parameter by noting subcommand syntax varies and providing examples ('rx', 'read', 'emulate'). It also suggests running flipper_capabilities for rejected commands, which aids parameter understanding. Schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, and the tool description compensates well for the timeout parameter's missing description.

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 the tool's purpose: 'receive, transmit and use universal remotes' using infrared. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flipper_rfid or flipper_subghz.

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?

Provides guidance on handling command rejection by running flipper_capabilities, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and first sentence.

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