dd2_hand_back

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important side effect, 'the game pauses itself', which an agent could not infer from the empty schema, but it omits preconditions and failure behavior for a tool that manipulates window/control state.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the state side-effect appended; every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere, and the empty schema needs no explanation. The description supplies the paired-tool relationship and the pause behavior, leaving only edge-case preconditions unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, and the description correctly introduces none. Baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing further to document.

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?

States a specific action (return the screen) and names the exact source of the target window (the one saved by dd2_take_control), which cleanly positions it as the inverse of that sibling. It falls short of 5 only because 'return the screen' is slightly abstract about what is being restored.

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?

Referencing dd2_take_control gives the agent clear context for when to invoke this tool: after control has been taken. No exclusions or error conditions (e.g. what happens if take_control was never called) are described.

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