analyze_led

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core behavior — high-speed frame sampling to derive discrete states, Hz, duty cycle, and color — but says nothing about camera access requirements, whether the camera must be idle, how the tool handles ambiguity (e.g., flicker below sampling resolution), or whether it blocks during the 0.5-5s window.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb+resource lead and the enumerations are informative rather than redundant. It is slightly overloaded as one long clause chain, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned values (state, Hz, duty cycle, color) is genuinely necessary and present. However, for a hardware-sampling tool with zero annotations, it omits operational context an agent needs — camera/permission prerequisites and interaction with sibling camera tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so fps, camera, region, and duration_s are already fully documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Sample high-speed frames") and resource ("an LED or indicator") and enumerates exactly what it determines: state categories, blink frequency in Hz, duty cycle, and perceived color. This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like measure, read_text, or compare_to_baseline without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it is for analyzing an LED/indicator, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition for choosing it over measure or compare_to_baseline, and no prerequisites (e.g., camera availability, region definition) are stated.

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