Keyboard backlight

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 proactively states that mutations are 'bounded' with measurement and rollback if the expected level isn't observed, and mentions dry-run support. This gives agents a clear safety profile, though it doesn't cover return formats or failure modes beyond rollback.

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?

Two concise sentences with no verbosity. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds critical behavioral details (bounded mutations, dry-run). Every word earns its place.

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 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers basic functionality and safety but leaves gaps: the exact action taken on 'adjust' without a parameter, the return value of a read, and any preconditions beyond 'detected'. More detail would improve completeness, especially for an agent without structured fallback.

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 input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so a baseline of 4 applies. However, the description fails to clarify how the tool behaves with no parameters—specifically, how 'adjust' is enacted without a target level. Does it toggle, cycle, or use a default? This ambiguity reduces the score below baseline.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: reading or adjusting a keyboard-backlight LED. It uses specific verbs ('Read or adjust') and a specific resource ('detected keyboard-backlight LED'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brightness_display or audio_volume, which target different hardware.

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 implies usage (controlling keyboard backlight) but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. There are no exclusions, comparisons, or conditions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name and sibling context.

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