turn_screen_off

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the device remains active for control/casting, which is useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'off' action. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., screen lock implications), or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action with a clarifying parenthetical, and the second briefly notes the return type. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple action), an output schema exists (specifying return type), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, device state, and return value. However, for a mutation tool, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary information.

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 action ('Turn off the screen') and specifies the resource (the screen), with a clarifying note about device activity. It distinguishes from sibling 'turn_screen_on' by indicating the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other power-related tools like 'stop_app' or 'exit_service', which slightly reduces 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., screen must be on), exclusions (e.g., not for powering off the device), or compare to siblings like 'turn_screen_on' or 'get_screen_info'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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