led_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('control') but doesn't specify if this requires permissions, has side effects, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a tool that likely changes hardware state.

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 extremely concise with just three characters in Chinese, which is efficient. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It gets straight to the point but lacks necessary detail.

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?

Given this is a hardware control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects. For a tool that likely interacts with physical hardware, more context is needed about its operation and effects.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear enum values ('on'/'off'), so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'on' or 'off' means in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '控制LED开关' (control LED switch) states a clear verb ('control') and resource ('LED switch'), but it's vague about what specific action is performed. It doesn't distinguish from potential siblings like 'set_pwm' which might also control LEDs. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_pwm'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It's a basic statement of function without usage instructions.

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