tv_notify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Show a toast notification', omitting critical details like whether the TV must be powered on, whether it requires an active connection, what happens if the TV is off, or if the tool returns any acknowledgment. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundant words. However, it could benefit from a bit more structure, e.g., separating behavior from parameter hints.

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 the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema (content unknown), the description should still mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, error conditions) and any prerequisites (e.g., TV must be on). The current description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema: it does not clarify the format or constraints of the message, nor the behavior when tv_name is omitted. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 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 action ('Show') and the resource ('toast notification on the TV screen'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tv_audio or tv_launch, which have different purposes. However, it could be more specific about what a toast notification entails (e.g., duration, position).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate whether this is for brief messages vs. tv_display for persistent content, or when to use tv_notify over tv_state notifications. No exclusions or context are given.

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