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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals possible values like power 'unknown', a 'reachable' flag, and the full list of status fields returned.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element earns its place: the resource, the action, and a compact parenthetical list of all returned fields.

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 read-only status tool, the description is complete: it lists all meaningful return values and the annotations cover safety, idempotence, and world-openness. Since there is no output schema, the explicit field enumeration is especially valuable.

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 zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description introduces no parameter-related ambiguity.

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 ('Retourne') and names the exact resource ('statut du Denon') with the returned fields enumerated (volume, power, muted, source, reachable). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all mutating commands such as volume_set, power_on, and mute_toggle.

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 read-only nature and returned fields make it obvious this is the status-checking tool among the sibling control commands, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It relies on inference from the sibling names and annotations rather than stating a decision rule.

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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description does not contradict annotations, but it also doesn't add behavioral context beyond what annotations imply. For instance, since it's not read-only't it's a state-changing action, but the description doesn't clarify whether it affects all zones or only the current one. IdempotentHint is true, so calling repeatedly is safe, but that's not stated.

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 ('Desactive le mute du Denon.' – one sentence). It is front-loaded with the essential action. Could be slightly more informative but 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 simple tool with no params and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient to understand the basic action. However, it lacks any context about the device state or side effects. Additional context such as 'This only affects the master zone' or 'This is equivalent to toggling mute when mute is on' would improve completeness.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter info. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing to add, so a 4 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?

Purpose is clear: unmute the Denon device. The description uses a specific verb and resource, but is minimal and lacks context beyond the action. It distinguishes from siblings like mute_on and mute_toggle by its direct naming.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that mute_toggle could be used as a generic alternative, nor does it describe any prerequisites (e.g., device must be powered on). A better description would note that this is for explicitly turning mute off.

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 annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds the target device ('Denon') but doesn't discuss side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions, though for a simple mute activation this is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the action and target. There is no superfluous information, achieving excellent conciseness.

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—no parameters, no output schema, and straightforward action—the description provides adequate context by identifying the device and the operation. It doesn't reference related tools, but that is not strictly necessary for a basic mute-on command.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty schema). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly implies the mute operation applies to the Denon device, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 a specific action ('activate the mute') and identifies the target device ('Denon'). This verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like mute_off and mute_toggle, making the tool's 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as mute_off or mute_toggle. It does not mention scenarios where one might prefer one mute control over another, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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?

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent action, and the description adds the concrete on/off toggle semantics. It does not dwell on the dependence on the current mute state, but 'toggle' sufficiently conveys that 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the object, which is ideal for such a simple tool.

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 command with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the core behavior adequately. However, it omits any reference to the sibling mute_on/mute_off tools, which are needed to fully contextualize this command.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for zero parameters is appropriate here.

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 action ('toggle') and a clear resource ('le mute du Denon'), and clarifies the on/off behavior. It is more specific than the bare name, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools mute_on and mute_off.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus mute_on or mute_off, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The intended use is only implied by the word 'toggle'.

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?

Annotations already declare this as mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the specific behavioral nuance that the action puts the device into standby, not a hard power cut. This is useful context beyond the raw annotations, and there is no contradiction.

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 short sentence with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, and the standby clarification is parenthetical and efficient. 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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter command with no output schema. The description fully explains what the tool does and its effect. There is no missing information that an agent would need to call it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully documents the calling surface. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description has no obligation to explain parameter meaning.

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 ('Eteint' = turns off), a specific resource ('Denon AVR'), and a mode ('standby'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like power_on, volume_set, and get_status without ambiguity.

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 makes the intended use evident: powering off the Denon AVR. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the sibling context is unambiguous—there is no competing tool for turning off the device. A clear context with no exclusions merits a 4.

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 discloses only the basic state change and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as boot delay, already-on behavior, or confirmation of success. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructive intent, so the description adds little transparency value.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that contains exactly the necessary information and no filler.

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, parameterless power-toggle command with annotations covering idempotency and non-destructive behavior, the description is largely complete. It could add a note on how to confirm the power-on result, but that is not essential for such a direct action.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. This matches the baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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?

“Allume le Denon AVR” uses a direct verb and names the exact resource, so the intended action is unmistakable. It clearly conveys the on/off semantics that separate it from power_off, though it does not explicitly call out sibling tools.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when the Denon AVR should be powered on. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer power_off, get_status, or set_input.

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?

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, and non-destructive. The description simply restates the action of changing the input source; it adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the device must be powered on or how errors are reported.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of valid values. No filler or redundant content.

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 setter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's purpose and valid values. There is no missing information needed to select and invoke the tool 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 the schema already documents the 'source' parameter. The description lists the same example values and adds no new meaning beyond confirming the valid set, which is also present in the schema's description.

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 'Change' with a resource 'la source d'entree' (input source) of the Denon, and enumerates the exact valid values (BD, TV, GAME, SAT/CBL, DVD, MPLAY). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle volume, mute, power, and status.

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 provides a clear context: it is for changing the Denon's input source, and the sibling tools cover different functions (volume, power, mute). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unambiguous given the sibling list.

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?

Annotations already carry the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool decrements the current volume state, but it does not mention edge behavior at minimum volume or the cumulative effect of repeated calls. No annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and object appear immediately. Nothing could be trimmed 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?

For a simple command with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It does not state behavior at minimum volume or exactly how step maps to physical presses, but those are minor gaps for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the step parameter is fully documented with min/max/default and a human-readable explanation. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ('Baisse') and a clear target ('le volume du Denon'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like volume_set or volume_up, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when the goal is to lower the Denon volume. However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as volume_set for absolute control or volume_up for increasing volume.

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?

Annotations already convey mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by providing the calibration '80 = 0dB reference', which helps the agent reason about the resulting loudness. No contradictory claims.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and the calibration note is placed second; 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 simple one-parameter setter with annotations covering safety and idempotency and schema covering the range, the description is complete. No output schema is needed for this kind of command-style tool, and the 0dB calibration fills the only interpretive gap.

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% and the single level parameter already has type, range, and description. The description still adds meaning by interpreting the numeric scale with the 0dB reference at 80, which is more actionable than the schema alone.

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 ('Règle' / sets), a specific resource ('volume du Denon'), and explicit target semantics ('niveau spécifique 0-98'). This distinguishes it clearly from volume_up, volume_down, and mute_* siblings because it describes absolute level setting, not relative or mute behavior.

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 phrase 'à un niveau spécifique' clearly implies absolute setting, which distinguishes this from the relative sibling tools volume_up and volume_down. It does not explicitly state 'use this for exact level, use volume_up/down for steps', but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to choose it.

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?

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and has open-world side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action; it does not disclose any side effects, state changes, prerequisites, or failure modes. While it does not contradict annotations, it provides zero added value over the structured data.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is a model of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 mutates state (readOnlyHint=false) and has open-world behavior (openWorldHint=true), the description is incomplete. It does not mention any caveats (e.g., what happens at maximum volume), how results are returned (no output schema), or any prerequisites. The one-sentence description leaves out important context an agent would need to use it safely and effectively. Even for a simple tool, more context is required when annotations already signal mutating behavior.

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 already covers the sole parameter 'step' with a clear description ('Nombre de fois a augmenter (default: 1)') and bounds (min/max). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter. The description's mention of 'augmente' implicitly relates to the step, but this is redundant with the 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 a specific verb ('Augmente') and resource ('le volume du Denon'), making the action obvious. It distinguishes from volume_down and mute tools by use of 'augmente', but it does not explicitly differentiate from volume_set or mention the incremental nature, which is implied rather than stated. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the verb. No alternatives are mentioned, no exclusions are provided, and no context about preferred scenarios is given. This falls short of even implied usage guidelines beyond the basic action.

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