tv_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the ADB key-repeat mechanism, supports repeatable up/down steps, and notes that set targets an absolute level. It does not mention result feedback or edge cases, but the core side effects are stated.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with a concise action list. Parenthetical modifiers keep it compact while preserving important distinctions like repeatability and absolute level.

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 one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention what the tool returns or confirms after an action, but overall the action semantics and parameter mappings are adequately covered.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'absolute level' and 'ADB key repeats,' but these mostly restate or slightly extend what the schema already says for 'level' and 'steps.' No significant new parameter meaning is added.

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 resource (TV volume) and the specific actions available (up, down, mute, unmute, set). It is distinct from sibling tools like tv_power, tv_play, and tv_key without needing their schemas.

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 states what the tool controls but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool names help by contrast, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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