open_source_projector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the two modes (fullscreen/windowed) and parameter effects, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether this is a blocking UI operation, or what the return value/behavior is after invocation.

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: a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal args list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant information.

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 UI action with three parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the input semantics and behavior. It explains what the tool does and how each argument affects the resulting projector.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining source_name, monitor_index, and projector_geometry with their roles and defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/title/default fields.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource: 'Open a fullscreen or windowed projector for a specific source.' It clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_video_mix_projector by focusing on source projection.

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 implies usage: use this tool to display a source as a projector. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like open_video_mix_projector, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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