screen_on

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the tool re-lights the screen after screen_off, which is useful but does not elaborate on state or failure behavior. 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?

The description is a single short sentence that communicates the action and precondition without waste or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless command with annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description provides the key precondition. It does not explicitly route around power_on, but the sibling list plus 'screen' scope make this sufficient 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 input schema is empty with 0 parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. The schema coverage is complete, and the tool needs no parameter documentation.

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 concrete action ('Rallume l'ecran de la TV') and ties it to a sibling command ('apres un screen_off'), identifying screen-level scope and distinguishing it from power_on/power_off. An agent can tell exactly what this tool targets.

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 'apres un screen_off' gives an explicit condition for when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention power_on as the alternative for full power-on. Context is clear, exclusions are absent.

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