MCP Remote Control

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 states the operation retrieves information and specifies the output format (XML), but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens if the device is offline, or if this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 states exactly what the tool does and the output format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It explains what information is retrieved and the format (XML), which complements the structured data. For a simple retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than non-existent inputs.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('basic device information'), including examples of what information is returned (model, software version). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the focus on device information distinguishes it from app-related or control tools in the sibling list.

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, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'power_on' or 'list_apps'. The agent must infer usage context from 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.