set_caps_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the exact mechanism: reads `&025A`, taps key 135 conditionally, and returns the resulting state and whether a tap was issued. It also explains side effects (physical key tap) and the return value, providing excellent 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a concise explanation of the underlying logic. Every sentence adds value—what it does, how it works, and what it returns—without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, return values, and side effects. It lacks details on potential error conditions or required permissions, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, it is nearly 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?

The input schema provides only types and names, with 0% coverage of descriptions. The description clarifies the `on` parameter by explaining that the tool compares the current state to `on` and taps only if different, giving it semantic meaning. The `session_id` is not described, but it is a standard parameter across sibling tools and likely needs no further explanation.

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: 'Set CAPS LOCK to a specific state, tapping only if needed.' It specifies the action (set), the resource (CAPS LOCK), and the behavior (conditional tap). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool `press_caps_lock`, which likely just toggles the key without a defined end state.

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 when to use this tool—when you need to assert a specific CAPS LOCK state—and mentions the benefit of not needing a follow-up `read_memory`. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, nor does it compare itself to `press_caps_lock` or other input tools.

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