Tv Play

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: automatic content-ID resolution and deep-linking into the TV app. However, it omits prerequisites (must the TV be on/paired?), failure modes, and ambiguity handling when a name matches multiple titles, which matters for a 6-param playback tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key behavioral note. Efficient, though the 'primary tool' line is slightly self-referential rather than instructive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. What is missing is the operational context a playback tool needs: TV state prerequisites, auth/pairing requirements, and what happens when the query is ambiguous. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter is already documented, including platform values and Netflix-only season/episode. The description only hints at title_id's role by noting the ID is resolved automatically; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: find content by name and play it on TV. It also self-declares as the primary tool and distinguishes itself via auto-resolution and deep-linking. It never names the siblings it is not (tv_launch, tv_cast, tv_resolve), so differentiation is partial.

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?

Calling itself 'the primary tool' implies preferred usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative is named (e.g. tv_resolve for lookup-only, tv_cast for casting). Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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