Tv Display

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that HTML is generated, served locally, and opened in the TV's browser, but it does not cover permissions, persistence, whether existing TV content is replaced, or any side effects.

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 tightly written sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact explanation of the underlying mechanism, with no wasted words.

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 that the schema is rich, an output schema exists, and the tool has only four parameters, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It explains the mechanism and content types, but its lack of routing guidance among many TV siblings leaves a small contextual gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters in detail, including content-type-specific data shapes. The description adds only the general notion of showing any URL and does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific action and resource: turning the TV into a display that shows dashboards, messages, clocks, or URLs. It is clearly more than a restatement of the tool name, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as tv_screen, tv_notify, or tv_cast.

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 implies the tool is for showing content on a TV, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With many sibling tools available, an agent is left to infer when tv_display is preferred over tv_screen, tv_notify, or tv_launch.

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