screen_off

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the exact behavioral effect (keeps sound active) and operational limitations (source-dependent). No contradiction with annotations.

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 clear sentence followed by a concise note. Both statements earn their place: the first defines the core behavior, the second provides a practical operating constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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, no-output-schema command, the description covers the primary effect, the auxiliary behavior (sound remains), and a key environmental limitation. It could be slightly more explicit about when to prefer this over power_off or screen_on, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter details, as none exist.

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 turns off the TV screen while keeping sound active, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like power_off and screen_on by explicitly mentioning the sound stays on, and the note about HDMI/TV versus Android mode adds more scoping.

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 it (music mode, screen off but audio still needed) and provides clear context through the source limitation note. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X', but the purpose and limitation give reasonable guidance.

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