adjust_brightness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the core behavior (adjusting up/down by steps) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., if the brightness range is clamped), permission requirements, or impact on connected displays. For a simple tool this is adequate, but it lacks some nuanced behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that immediately states the core functionality. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., behavior at minimum/maximum brightness) or return values, but such details are not critical for a basic adjustment action. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'direction' and 'steps' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond rephrasing the same information. Since the schema already fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'adjusts' with a clear resource 'screen brightness' and specifies the action scope ('up or down by a specified number of steps'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_volume or get_volume, which are for audio.

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 tool provides clear context: it is for adjusting screen brightness incrementally. There are no alternative brightness tools among siblings, so there is no ambiguity about when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the purpose is straightforward and the context makes usage obvious.

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