send_ir_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Send IR message' without explaining whether this is a one-time transmission, whether it requires an established connection, what side effects it has, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. The single sentence 'Send IR message' adds no value beyond the tool name, so it does not 'earn 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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to convey essential context such as supported IR code formats, required system state (e.g., broadcasting enabled), or the meaning of the output. The description is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'code' or 'strength' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent without any understanding of what values are valid or how they affect behavior.

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 'Send IR message' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'send_ir_message'. It names the action and resource but adds no specificity about the type of IR message, the meaning of 'code', or how this differs from sibling tools like start_ir_broadcasting or start_ir_following.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or differentiation from the many IR-related sibling tools (e.g., get_ir_readings, start_ir_broadcasting).

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