nanokvm_hdmi_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return type (dictionary) and the key fields (connected, width, height), making the tool's read-only nature and output structure clear. However, it does not specify behavior when HDMI is disconnected (e.g., null values), which is a minor gap.

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 core purpose in the first sentence. The return value breakdown adds necessary detail without fluff, making every sentence earn its place.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains both the primary action and the exact structure of the return value, so an agent knows what to expect without needing additional context.

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 input schema is empty, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per baseline, a zero-parameter tool gets a 4; the description adds value by explaining the returned data, which is more relevant than parameter details.

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 ('Get') and resource ('HDMI connection status and resolution'), immediately clarifying what the tool does. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like nanokvm_hdmi_reset (an action) and nanokvm_led_status (different resource), making the purpose 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 implies usage for reading HDMI status but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that nanokvm_hdmi_reset is for resetting or that this tool is read-only, leaving context to be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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