xbox_power_on

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the SmartGlass wake packet protocol and the standby/sleep precondition, but it omits authentication or permission requirements, behavior when the console is fully off, and what a success or failure response looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every phrase contributes to identifying the action, precondition, and transport.

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 schema fully documents the three optional parameters, but the tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should ideally cover prerequisites such as saved config or auth needs and the expected return behavior. It covers the core operation adequately but leaves those operational gaps.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents ip, tries, and live_device_id. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond that baseline.

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 specific verb ('Powers ON') and resource ('Xbox console'), and it clearly distinguishes the action from siblings like xbox_power_off and xbox_discover by naming the source state and transport protocol.

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?

It gives useful context by specifying the console must be in standby/sleep mode and reachable over local Wi-Fi/LAN, which helps an agent know when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as xbox_discover when the IP is unknown or xbox_power_off for the inverse operation.

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