transmit_infrared

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, and the description adds value by warning of real IR, requiring approval per call, and explaining that it launches the app and shows the button list. It does not cover error cases but provides sufficient transparency for the core behavior.

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, front-loaded with a warning, and contains only relevant information. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and a sibling reference. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the overall workflow and integration with sibling tools press and screenshot. It does not discuss error handling or return values, but since no output schema is provided, this is acceptable. It could be more complete by explicitly describing the screenshot parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It provides an example for path ('/ext/infrared/TV.ir') but does not explain the then_screenshot parameter or its default. The meaning of then_screenshot is only indirectly implied by the mention of screenshot in the usage flow. This is partial compensation; more explicit parameter descriptions would be better.

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 it opens a saved Infrared remote file over BLE, launching the Infrared app to show the button list. It distinguishes from siblings like press by explaining the workflow: open then press to fire a command. The verb 'open' and resource 'saved Infrared remote file' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (to open a remote before pressing buttons) and provides a clear usage flow: open, then use press (+ screenshot). It also mentions approval per call. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or alternatives, though the context implies it is the necessary first step for IR commands.

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