openSystemTray

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 describes the action but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., might trigger notifications), platform-specific variations beyond the parameter, or what happens if the tray is already open. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and method. Every word contributes essential information with zero waste, making it perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what 'opening' means in behavioral terms (e.g., visual feedback, interaction state) or address potential failure modes, leaving some contextual gaps despite the simple nature.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('open') and target resource ('system notification tray') with precise implementation details ('by swiping down from the status bar'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'swipe' or 'swipeOnScreen' by specifying the exact gesture and purpose.

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 context (opening the notification tray) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swipe' for general swiping or 'recentApps' for app switching. No guidance is provided about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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