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

Discloses one-time activation, key stored on processor, persists across reboots, and that the key is not secret. Since annotations are absent, description carries full burden and does it thoroughly.

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?

Four sentences efficiently convey purpose, usage, behavior, and security. Front-loaded with activation purpose, no redundant words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: when, why, how, and behavioral traits. No 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 has one param with basic description. The description adds context on how to obtain the key and its non-secret nature, going beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but description adds significant 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?

Clearly states verb 'Activate' and resource 'Crestron processor' with 'license key'. Differentiates from sibling tools like 'start_crestron_trial' and 'get_crestron_license_status' by specifying activation with a user-provided key.

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?

Explicitly says to use when a command fails due to licensing and explains how to get the key from the user based on the processor's activation code. No alternative usage needed, provides complete guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the tool's effects: stopping ramps, releasing pulses, clearing delayed actions, but not altering a static value. It also notes applicability: 'Works on any device type.' This is complete behavioral transparency.

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 informative but slightly verbose. It front-loads the core action and uses examples effectively. While every sentence adds value, it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and a rich sibling tool list, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it avoids, and its broad applicability, leaving no important 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for device_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema's example. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Stop/cancel activity' and specifies the resource 'device'. It enumerates specific actions: stop ramp, release pulse, clear delayed action, and provides concrete examples like 'stop the fade'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ramp_crestron_device, pulse_crestron_device, and set_crestron_devices.

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 explicitly states use cases: 'Use for "stop the fade", "stop ringing the bell", "cancel that timer".' It also clarifies what it does not do: 'Does not otherwise change the device's value - a device that is simply on/high from a normal set stays on.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action and optional delay, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, permissions, or error handling. The example adds context but is insufficient.

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 concise: two sentences. First states purpose, second adds optional delay with an example. No unnecessary words.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and many siblings, the description is brief. It does not explain return values, how to verify success, or error cases. Adequate but not complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, except for a usage example and explanation of delay_ms. Baseline is 3.

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 action ('Set a device's value') and the resource (device), with an example. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'set_crestron_devices' (bulk) or 'pulse_crestron_device'.

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?

While the description mentions optional delay and gives an example, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pulse, ramp). No exclusions or context are given.

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 mentions the return format (rooms, categories, device counts) which adds context. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The verb 'Discover' implies a safe operation, but this is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and return content. It is complete enough given the simplicity of the tool.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete. According to calibration rules, baseline score is 4 when there are no parameters.

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: to discover devices and capabilities in the Crestron system, returning rooms, categories, and device counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_crestron_devices and list_crestron_rooms by focusing on high-level discovery.

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 initial system exploration, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus more specific siblings like list_crestron_devices. No guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains what the tool returns but does not mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The behavioral guidance on presenting results adds some context beyond raw output.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. Includes extra guidance but remains efficient. Slightly verbose with the 'Nudge, don't nag' line, but overall well-structured.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's return fields and use cases. Could mention error scenarios, but is sufficiently complete for a simple status check.

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?

No parameters defined; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 applies per rules for zero-parameter tools. Description adds no parameter info because none exist.

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 checks the processor's license/trial state and lists specific details it returns. It distinguishes this status-checking tool from sibling tools like activate_crestron_license and start_crestron_trial.

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 explicit context to call it at session start and whenever license status is relevant, plus guidance on how to present results (mention trial time, offer renewal). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the tool as a read-only getter that returns epoch_ms and iso, without mentioning side effects or permissions. For a simple retrieval tool, this is sufficient and does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 two sentences long with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and output, then immediately provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It specifies the output fields and provides a clear usage scenario, making it complete for agent 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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output fields (epoch_ms and iso) and their use, going beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'processor's current time', and the output format 'epoch milliseconds and ISO 8601'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like query_crestron_device by highlighting its use for absolute timestamps, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises using this tool to correlate timestamps from query_crestron_device or when system real time is needed, and notably suggests avoiding the need to decode a wired clock. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is clear and context-specific.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or the format of the returned data. The description is minimal and does not disclose behaviors beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return format (e.g., list of devices with status). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what data to expect. For a simple tool, more detail is needed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and the schema description provides clear examples. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the status of all devices in a room. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from sibling tools which are focused on Crestron-specific operations like licenses and device 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'list_crestron_rooms' or 'query_crestron_device' could be related, but no exclusions or context are given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, idempotent, or free of side effects. It lacks depth beyond the basic operation.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's action and optional filters. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 required params, no output schema, 2 optional params), the description adequately explains the filter options. However, it does not specify default behavior (e.g., all devices if no filters) or pagination, which would be helpful for an agent.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the specific categories (Lighting, AV, HVAC, Shades) which are not enumerated in the schema. This helps the agent understand valid input values beyond the schema descriptions.

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: listing controllable devices with optional filters. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'controllable devices,' and distinguishes from sibling tools like control_crestron_device which perform actions rather than listing.

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 listing devices with optional filters but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action but omits details like read-only nature, permissions, or output format. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what it does (list rooms with device counts). Could be slightly improved by indicating list vs single result.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add param-specific meaning, but it is also not required. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' and resource 'all rooms' with additional detail 'with their device counts'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_crestron_devices', which lists devices instead.

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 getting an overview of rooms with device counts but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_room_status' or 'list_crestron_devices'.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the pulsing behavior, rejection of non-digital devices, and optional delay. Does not detail error handling or return values, but overall is transparent about core behavior.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the main action. Covers key points in one paragraph without verbosity.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameter meanings, constraints, and siblings. Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds examples and clarifies that delay_ms is optional, but does not significantly extend beyond schema descriptions.

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: 'Momentarily pulse a DIGITAL device: drive it on for pulse_ms, then back off - a simulated button press.' It specifies the action (pulse), resource (digital device), and distinguishes from siblings like control_crestron_device and ramp_crestron_device.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use for momentary triggers like "press the doorbell", "tap the projector power button", "trigger the gate".' Also states when not to use: 'Digital devices only; analog and serial devices are rejected (use control_crestron_device / ramp_crestron_device).'

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It explains the return structure and time fields (epoch milliseconds, remaining_ms/in_ms). However, it omits details like side effects (none, as a read), authentication needs, or error conditions. Still, it provides substantial 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?

The description is concise, front-loading the main purpose and providing details in a single paragraph. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is not verbose and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values and introduces helpful fields like remaining_ms/in_ms. It covers the main states and time concepts, but lacks details on error cases or format confirmations (e.g., if device not found).

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for device_id. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('live state of a device'), then enumerates specific state components (current value, idle/ramping/pulsing with time fields, pending scheduled action). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like ramp_crestron_device or pulse_crestron_device.

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 querying device state and explains how to interpret time fields, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The note 'One read tells you idle vs in-flight vs scheduled' gives context, but lacks direct comparisons.

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses analog-only nature, duration, and optional delay. Could be more explicit about failure modes if device type mismatches.

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, front-loaded with core operation, then usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. Minor gap: no mention of error handling if device_id invalid.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context (analog value range) but largely mirrors schema.

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 it ramps (fades) an analog device to a value over a duration, and distinguishes from sibling tools like control_crestron_device.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (analog fade requests) and when not to (digital/serial devices, instant set), and references an alternative tool.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that fading (duration_ms) is analog-only, that delay_ms can be applied, and that plain values may contain colons but not commas. It does not mention idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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?

Every sentence adds value. The description is concise yet informative, front-loading the purpose and providing examples. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter constraints, behavior nuances, and examples. The sibling list further aids context. There are no obvious 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains analog-only restriction for duration_ms, the comma/colon constraint for values, and the relationship to control_crestron_device rules. These details help the agent use parameters correctly.

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 applies a scene/macro by setting many devices in one call. It provides specific examples ('movie night', staged sequences) and the verb 'set' combined with 'many devices' distinguishes it from siblings like control_crestron_device (single device) and pulse_crestron_device.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (e.g., 'movie night' or staged sequences) and implies when not to use (if only setting one device, use control_crestron_device). It also references 'Values follow control_crestron_device rules' to guide value formatting. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when to avoid this tool.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it starts a trial, reports trials_remaining and expiry, returns a buy link when exhausted, and clarifies that underlying AV keeps working. This is comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action stated first. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, when to use it, limits, return values, and side effects. It leaves no 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?

Since there are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic value by explaining the output (trials_remaining, expiry, buy link) and operational context, exceeding the 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 clearly states the tool starts a free 7-day trial on a processor, with specifics like no payment needed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'activate_crestron_license' by focusing on trials and mentioning when to use it (unlicensed or lapsed trials).

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 explicitly advises using the tool when the processor is unlicensed or a trial has lapsed, and it mentions the trial limit of 3 per processor. It indirectly differentiates from license activation but lacks an explicit 'do not use when' statement.

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