control_blinds

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool modifies device state, whether it is destructive, or any required authorizations. The valid commands (Open, Close, Stop) imply mutability, but no further context is given.

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 extremely concise, using only four lines to convey the purpose and arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Control blinds or covers'), and every sentence serves a clear function.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), the description omits important context such as how to uniquely identify a device, what happens when both idx and name are provided, and any constraints or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying valid command values ('Must be Open, Close, or Stop') and briefly explaining idx and name. However, it does not clarify how to use idx vs. name, nor does it describe error handling or precedence. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but lacks depth.

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 controls blinds or covers, and the command parameter specifies allowed actions (Open, Close, Stop). The tool name and description align well, and no sibling tool directly corresponds to blind control, so differentiation is implicit.

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 like set_switch_state or toggle_switch. The description simply states 'Control blinds or covers' without any context on prerequisites, device selection, or conflict resolution with sibling tools.

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