nanokvm_power

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: press durations (800ms, 5000ms), the fact that reset is unsupported on Pi 5, and that power_long is a force-off. This meets the behavioral transparency burden without annotation support.

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 well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by an Arg list and a note. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a single parameter with all values explained, including edge cases (Pi 5 reset). The note about power_cycle covers the sibling alternative, and the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each enum value in detail, including effects and timing. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, giving a 5.

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 tool controls the target machine's power with specific actions (power, power_long, reset). It distinguishes itself from the sibling nanokvm_power_cycle by recommending that function for reset on Pi 5, 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 provides explicit guidance for each action, including when to use power_long for force off. It explicitly warns against using 'reset' on Pi 5 and directs the user to nanokvm_power_cycle() as an alternative, satisfying when-not and alternatives requirements.

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