MCP Remote Control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that app_name is case-insensitive, which is useful context beyond the basic action. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the app isn't installed), permissions needed, or side effects (e.g., does it change TV state).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and basic usage. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or prerequisites, especially since no annotations are provided.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that app_name is the name of the app to launch, provides examples (Netflix, YouTube, Hulu), specifies it's case-insensitive, and references list_apps() for available options, fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 ('Launches an application') and resource ('on the TV'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_apps (which lists apps) or press_key (which simulates key presses). It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to launch an app by name) and references list_apps() as a way to see available apps, offering implicit guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like power_on for broader device control.

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