pixoo_display_text

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

Annotations indicate non-destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it pushes to the device, returns an image for inspection, and details that brightness failure is a warning. It also explains the 'auto' effect behavior. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long plus a note about alternatives and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and succinctly covers key points without waste.

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?

Despite complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, enums), the description provides a solid overview: purpose, usage guidelines, return format (image block), and key features. The output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions theme, gradient, shadow, outline, and auto-fit, but these are already in the schema. The description provides context but limited added value for parameter semantics.

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 'Render styled text onto the Pixoo display and push it' and distinguishes from sibling tools like pixoo_compose_scene and pixoo_design_brief. It specifies the tool as the primary one for text-only display.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (text-only display) and when not to (use pixoo_compose_scene for layers, icons, etc.). Also recommends running pixoo_design_brief first for guidance. Provides clear context and alternatives.

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