kiosk_show_school_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool renders a screen but doesn't describe what 'render' entails (e.g., display changes, side effects, permissions needed, or response format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and implications.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and content. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's function. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is rendered and what it includes.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'render' means operationally) and usage guidelines. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, this leaves the agent with incomplete information to use it effectively.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 purpose: 'Render a school-run readiness screen with leave time and checklist.' It specifies the action ('Render'), the target ('school-run readiness screen'), and key content elements ('leave time and checklist'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'kiosk_show_scene' or 'kiosk_show_calendar' beyond the content focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other sibling tools (like 'kiosk_show_scene' or 'kiosk_show_calendar') might be more suitable. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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