label_button_grid

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains fill order, empty string handling, and default columns, but omits crucial details: whether existing labels are overwritten, what the output is (though an output schema exists, it's not described), and error conditions.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second details behavior, third covers parameters. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, fill order, and two parameters well. But it lacks explanation for the page parameter and does not describe the return value, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 0%, so the description adds value. It explains labels_json with an example and columns with default and Stream Deck usage. However, the page parameter is not described at all, leaving a gap.

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 labels a grid of buttons from a flat list of names. It specifies fill order (left-to-right, top-to-bottom) and handling of empty strings, distinguishing it from other sibling tools like set_button_text or apply_button_template.

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 provides context (fill order, default columns, suggestion for Stream Deck) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. The sibling tool list implies other methods for individual labeling or template application, so the usage is implicit.

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