ambilight_on

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

The description only states what the tool does and adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention effects, limitations, or prerequisites, though the annotations already signal idempotence and non-destructive behavior. Since there is no contradiction and the annotations cover the basic safety profile, it is not a 1, but the description itself contributes little transparent detail.

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, directly worded declarative sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple action.

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 no-argument command, the description, empty schema, and annotations are nearly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only an explicit note about how it relates to ambilight_mode or ambilight_off, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 zero parameters in the schemaholen, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details.

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 ('Active') and a specific resource ('l'Ambilight de la TV'), clearly indicating that this tool turns on the TV's Ambilight feature. It is easily distinguished from siblings like power_on, ambilight_off, and ambilight_mode because it names the exact feature and direction of action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ambilight_mode or power_on. The context is only implied by the tool name, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion of alternatives.

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