Theme / night-mode flash report

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

The description only states 'correlate', which implies analysis. Annotations indicate no read-only or destructive hints, but the description lacks details on side effects, required permissions, or what happens to tool state. It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal 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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core correlation action. However, the density may reduce readability. It is efficient but could benefit from slight restructuring.

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 tool has an output schema, reducing the need to describe return values. However, the description does not explain what the report contains or how to interpret results. Given the complexity of correlating night mode and recording analysis, more context would be helpful.

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 low (25%), with only 'serial' described. The description mentions 'markWindowMs' implicitly via '± markWindowMs', but does not explain 'path', 'artifactUri', or other parameters. The description partially compensates for one parameter but leaves others 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 clearly states the tool correlates system night mode with recording analysis and marks, using specific terms like 'flash mode' and 'black/dim run'. It is distinct from sibling tools, though it could be more explicit about the output format.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where it is preferred over similar tools like mobile_analyze_recording.

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