mindreset_complex_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether this replaces the current screen content, requires the device to be online, needs auth, or what side effects occur — significant gaps for a device-write tool.

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. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly what leaves the behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation against a physical device, the definition should explain at least the effect on existing screen content and any device-state prerequisites. Neither is present, so an agent cannot confidently predict the outcome.

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 title, message, deviceId, and signature are already documented. The description adds only a restatement of 'text content with signature' and no format, length, or encoding details beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Send'), a resource ('complex text content with signature'), and a target ('MindReset device screen'). The word 'complex' implicitly separates it from the sibling mindreset_simple_text, but the differentiation is not stated outright.

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: 'complex text' suggests this is for richer content than mindreset_simple_text, and 'with signature' hints at the signature parameter. No sibling is named, no when-not-to-use condition or prerequisite is given.

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