is_keyboard_open

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does communicate a read-only state check with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state the return type or behavior when no device is connected or when the keyboard state cannot be determined.

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 one clean sentence, front-loads the purpose, and adds the parameter note without any filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless, single-purpose state check, the description is nearly complete and provides enough to invoke correctly. It only lacks an explicit return-semantics or error-case note, which is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema already documents this completely. The description adds the useful confirmation that no parameters are required. This matches the zero-parameter baseline.

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 action with a specific verb ('Checks if the virtual keyboard is currently open on the connected Android device') and identifies the exact resource being queried. It also distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which are keyboard-state checks.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when an agent needs to know whether the virtual keyboard is open. There are no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives, though no sibling tool appears to serve the same purpose.

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