Theme / night-mode flash report

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so an agent can see this is not a pure read despite being a 'report' tool. The description adds nothing beyond the computation itself: no mention of side effects, artifact persistence, permissions, or cost, so it fails to explain why a report operation is flagged as non-read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and packs the scoping detail into a trailing parenthetical. It is efficient with no padding, though the density borders on cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the domain vocabulary.

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?

The presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and the core computation is stated. However, with 25% schema coverage, no usage sequencing, and no explanation of the non-read-only flag, it falls short of fully equipping an agent to call this 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?

Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must carry the load for path, artifactUri, and markWindowMs. It references markWindowMs by name and implication, but never clarifies what path vs artifactUri select or how they interact, leaving three of four parameters effectively undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Correlate') and the resources involved (system night mode, a flash-mode recording analysis, and marks), which is enough to distinguish it from general analysis siblings like mobile_analyze_recording. It is dense and assumes the reader already knows what a 'flash' analysis and a 'black/dim run' are, but the core purpose is legible.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The prerequisites (a recording must first be analyzed with mode=flash, marks must exist) are implied by the mechanics but never stated, leaving the agent to infer the sequencing.

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