voltage_calibrate

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable detail: it creates virtual devices, moves the pointer, and captures output—concrete side effects beyond the annotation. It also explains why these behaviors are unpredictable ('depends on how libinput classified the virtual device'), which aligns with openWorldHint. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, immediately explains what the tool does, then provides the rationale and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and stays focused.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, mechanism, side effects, and when to run it. It also acknowledges an output summary (absolute vs relative fallback). However, it omits any explanation of the dry_run parameter, which is a key input that affects behavior. Given the presence of an output schema, return format doesn't need detailing, but the parameter gap leaves the description incomplete.

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 only parameter, dry_run, is entirely undocumented in the description. The schema gives its name, type, default, and requirement status but provides no semantic meaning. The description mentions 'non-dry-run' indirectly but never explains what dry_run does, when to set it to true, or what the difference is. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap—the description fails to compensate.

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's specific purpose: to verify that input injection reaches the compositor. It describes the concrete steps (creating virtual devices, moving pointer to three points, capturing) and the distinctive outcome (determining whether absolute positioning or relative fallback is needed). This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools, even without naming them.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Run this once per machine before trusting a real (non-dry-run) Playbook.' It explains that this is a one-time calibration step and that the result cannot be known without trying, which implies this is the tool to use for that purpose. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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