tv_power

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema by explaining that 'on' performs wake and WOL if needed and 'off' triggers standby. It does not disclose every edge case (e.g., what 'status' returns, idempotency), but for a simple power control tool with no annotations, it provides meaningful insight into operation semantics.

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 compact, front-loading the main purpose ('Control TV power') and then listing the actions in a clear, scannable format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and simple action semantics, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, the allowed actions, and behavioral notes for key actions. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of return values for 'status', but the action name and overall context make it fairly obvious.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, the description enriches the 'action' parameter by associating each enum value with a behavioral outcome. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Power action' label, helping the agent pick the right value with greater confidence.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Control TV power') and enumerates the exact actions (on, off, toggle, status), making it immediately clear this tool manages TV power. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tv_play, tv_volume, and tv_key, which handle other functions.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose and the sibling list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. An agent must infer that power-related actions belong here rather than getting a direct 'use this when...' statement or exclusions.

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