flipper_virtual_display

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the detail of sending a framebuffer, which is the core behavior. However, it omits potential state changes (e.g., starting/stopping display) and error conditions.

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 short sentences, under 20 words. Every part serves a purpose: stating the function and key technical parameter (framebuffer format). No filler.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the three actions (start, push, stop), the input handling flag, or any sequence-of-use. Missing details on what happens on errors or return status.

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 50% (port and image_base64 have descriptions). The description reiterates the framebuffer format but adds context for 'port' (omit when one Flipper attached). It does not explain the 'action' enum or 'send_input' parameter. Given coverage, the description provides marginal added value.

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'host-rendered graphics on the device screen', specifying the exact frame buffer format (128x64, 1024 bytes, base64). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like file operations or input control.

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 usage for displaying graphics but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like flipper_screenshot or flipper_screen_record. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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