activate_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended outcome but does not disclose side effects such as what happens to the previously visible screen, whether the change is pushed to the device, whether activation is reversible, or what failure behavior looks like.

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 sentence with no padding; it front-loads the core action and requires no unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter 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 simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, because there are no annotations, the description omits important context around prerequisites, side effects on the existing displayed screen, and how activation interacts with sibling tools, leaving notable contextual gaps.

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 provides no parameter description, so schema_description_coverage is 0%, but the single parameter 'screen_id' is fairly self-explanatory and the description's 'configured screen' gives minimal context linking the ID to a screen. Still, the description does not explain how to obtain screen_id, expected format, or any implicit constraints beyond the field name.

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-resource pair ('Make a configured screen visible on the Kindle') and clearly indicates the action targets a screen on a device. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from related sibling tools like render_preview, push_updates, or render/display workflows.

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 given about when to use activate_screen versus sibling alternatives such as push_updates, render_preview, or list_screens. The word 'configured' implies a prerequisite prerequisite, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or when-not-to-use instructions.

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