Tv Scene

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. 'Run' implies a state mutation on a device, yet the description never says whether running a scene changes device state, whether it is reversible, whether it requires an active TV connection, or how failure is reported. The preset list is the only added context.

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, zero filler, and the core capability ('Run or list scene presets') is front-loaded before the enumeration of built-ins. Nothing wastes the agent's context budget.

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. However, for a tool with a state-mutating 'run' action and no annotations, the description leaves an agent guessing about side effects, prerequisites for targeting a TV, and whether 'run' is destructive. It is minimally viable but thin given the mutation risk.

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 schema already explains that name is required for 'run' and tv_name targets a TV. The description adds real value by enumerating the built-in preset names (movie-night, kids, sleep, music), which are valid values an agent could not get from the schema. That nudges it just above a bare baseline.

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 states a specific verb pair and resource: 'Run or list scene presets.' This is clear and actionable, and the sibling list contains no other scene-related tool, so it is reasonably distinguishable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with neighbors, but the resource noun does the disambiguating work.

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 is implied rather than stated: the 'list' vs 'run' pair and the schema's default of 'list' tell the agent the two modes exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must a TV be selected first), and no exclusions or alternatives named. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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