Stage Sky Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that the setting is remembered on that headset for 20 minutes, that the page replies with the current sky, and that the tool emits nothing. It could go further on prerequisites such as headset availability, but it provides meaningful behavior beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, allowed values, default, persistence, reply format, and emission behavior in a few dense lines. Nothing is wasted.

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 the return shape need not be explained. The description adds useful persistence and reply context, but the undocumented required 'scene' parameter is a notable completeness gap for a tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 explain both parameters. It explains the mode values and default well, but it does not explain the required 'scene' parameter at all, leaving a major semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the sky', and enumerates the allowed modes day, night, and scene. It is immediately clear what the tool changes, and no sibling tool appears to overlap with sky setting.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this to change the current sky. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives, and it does not say 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.