power_on

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

The description states the intended behavior (powers on the TV) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as potential delays, error scenarios, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and while the core action is clear, more detail would improve transparency.

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 concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, straightforward action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context such as prerequisites (TV off), expected response, or potential side effects. For a trivial action, this may be acceptable, but more context would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to add parameter information. With zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 (power on) and the resource (the TV). It is distinct from sibling tools like discover_tv, get_device_info, launch_app, list_apps, and press_key, which serve different purposes.

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 vs. alternatives. For example, it does not mention that the TV should be off before calling, or suggest checking the TV state first with get_device_info. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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