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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only reachable/on-network TVs are listed, that pairing state is included, and that unpaired TVs require pair_begin first. This clearly implies a read-only, discovery-oriented behavior without side effects.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the primary action and output are front-loaded, followed by troubleshooting context and a concrete next-step pointer. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, when to use it, a key operational constraint (network/awake), and the follow-up action for unpaired devices. Nothing essential is missing.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic content. The description still adds value by specifying exactly what each returned entry provides: name, identifier, and pairing status. Nothing more is needed for parameter understanding.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the Apple TVs reachable from this host' and names the returned attributes (name, identifier, pairing state). It is clearly differentiated from sibling remote-control tools like ios_tv_pair_begin and ios_tv_power, which do not list devices.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Start here when a remote call reports that a TV could not be found' and explains the prerequisite that a TV must be awake and on the network. It also points to the next step for unpaired TVs: ios_tv_pair_begin.

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