tv_menu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key limitation about the menu block requirement and suggests a non-destructive focus action. However, it does not mention that by default it also presses ENTER after focusing (via the `select` parameter), nor does it describe potential side effects or failure modes. It adds some context but is not rich.

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 two sentences long, starting with the primary action and then covering the optional mode and prerequisite. Every sentence is informative and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with four optional parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context about the purpose, the optional modes, and the necessary app profile prerequisite. It could mention more about the use of the `menu` key or behavior when no menu block exists, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage; each of the four parameters already has a meaningful explanation. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Move focus into the app's main menu and pick a section by name.' It also explains the alternate use case (omitting `item` to just open the menu and list sections), and this distinguishes it from siblings like tv_press or tv_goto which are more generic navigation tools.

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 the tool (to interact with an app's main menu) and an explicit prerequisite: 'Requires a `menu` block in the app profile (apps/<app>.json)'. It also discloses a limitation ('the MCP itself knows nothing about any particular app's markup'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.

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