control_washer_raw

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 discloses that this is a raw/escape-hatch tool that sends arbitrary payloads, implying low-level access and potential risk. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on invalid payloads, whether the device state could be corrupted, or any error behavior. The description adds some context but could be more explicit about the risks of using a raw control.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose ('Escape hatch'). The example is helpful and the explanation of when to use it is clear. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating the example from the usage guidance.

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 complexity (raw control with arbitrary JSON), the description provides a reasonable starting point but lacks details on error handling, validation, or the exact source of the device profile. The output schema exists but the description doesn't mention what the response looks like. For a raw escape hatch, more cautionary context would be valuable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that control_json is a JSON object matching the device profile shape and gives an example. However, it doesn't explain the format of device_id (e.g., is it a string ID from list_devices?) or provide more detail on the expected JSON structure beyond one example. The description adds meaning but leaves some gaps.

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: sending an arbitrary control payload to the washer, and explicitly positions it as an 'escape hatch' for model-specific properties not covered by higher-level tools. This distinguishes it from the sibling control_washer, which presumably handles standard operations.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: for model-specific properties (timers, remote-control toggles) that higher-level tools do not cover. It implies that for standard operations, one should use control_washer instead, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it.

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