flipper_led

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as side effects, persistence of settings, prerequisites, or potential risks. It only states the basic operation, leaving the agent without enough context for a mutation-like 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that communicate the action and all parameter details without any redundancy or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and achieves maximum clarity with minimal text.

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 only two parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the operation and inputs. It does not elaborate on the return value, but for a setter this is typically inferable. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or edge cases, but overall it is nearly complete.

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 lists parameters without descriptions, giving 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the 'channel' parameter with valid values (r, g, b, bl) and the 'value' parameter with a range (0-255), adding complete meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Set an onboard LED channel') and resource, making its purpose unambiguous. It also specifies valid channel values and value range, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools like flipper_screenshot or flipper_status.

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 usage is implied by the tool's description and name; it is the obvious choice for controlling the onboard LED. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or exclude specific conditions, so it meets the baseline for implied usage without offering additional guidance.

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