dsk_auto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose transition duration, whether the call blocks until completion, whether it can be interrupted, or whether the on/off direction is determined by the DSK's current state. For a state-changing switcher operation these are meaningful omissions.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a virtue on its own.

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 state-mutating switcher tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions open: what 'auto' means versus dsk_on/dsk_off, and how the target state is selected when the only parameter is the DSK number. It is not enough to call the tool confidently without inspecting siblings.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'DSK number (1 or 2)' with an enum, so the schema already fully specifies it. The description adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (auto-transition a DSK layer), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related siblings dsk_on and dsk_off, leaving the agent to guess what 'auto' adds beyond those two tools. The 'on or off' phrasing also implies a toggle without saying so explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus dsk_on, dsk_off, or the general auto_transition sibling. The agent must infer that this performs a transition-effect-driven DSK key change rather than an instant cut, which is exactly the distinction that matters here.

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