tv_devices

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 explicitly states that the tool lists devices and their reachability/operations, implying a read-only inventory behavior with no side effects. This is transparent and sufficient for a list tool, though it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only'.

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 extremely concise, using two short sentences. The first front-loads the verb and resource, and the second adds directional guidance ('Start here') without wasted words. 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and how it fits into the broader toolset. It states the output content and positions itself as the starting point. While it doesn't detail return format, that's not necessary for a list operation.

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 fully covers the input side (empty object). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what will be listed, which is relevant context. Given the 0-parameter baseline of 4, this is appropriately scored.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured TVs'), and specifies the exact output content: reachability (sdb/ares) and supported operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions on individual TVs.

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 phrase 'Start here to see the park' provides clear contextual guidance that this is the entry point for discovering available TVs and their capabilities. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the instruction to start here implicitly tells the agent to use this tool before engaging with device-specific operations.

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