turn_screen_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Turn on the screen') and mentions a return value ('Success or error message'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or operational constraints (e.g., device state requirements). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with device hardware.

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 very concise, consisting of just two short sentences that state the action and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence could be more integrated or omitted if the output schema covers return values, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a tool that likely performs a device operation with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., safety, prerequisites) to be fully complete for an AI agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 on the screen') and resource ('screen'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'turn_screen_off' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention this contrast. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the obvious inverse.

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, such as 'turn_screen_off' or other screen-related tools like 'get_screen_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name alone.

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