Tv State

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes the snapshot semantics and that unsupported fields return None, which is real behavioral value, but it omits whether this is strictly read-only, whether it has side effects, latency/polling characteristics, or prerequisites such as the TV being powered on.

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?

Front-loads the purpose before the usage note and edge-case behavior in three tight sentences with no filler. Well structured, though the middle sentence is slightly redundant with the first.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values beyond the None-fallback nuance it already gives. For a simple one-param snapshot read tool it is essentially complete, missing only minor read-only/side-effect reassurance.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, where the schema already documents 'Target TV name. Omit for default TV.' The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at this coverage level.

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 clear verb (Get) and resource (TV state) and enumerates the four dimensions captured (playback, volume, input, power). The word 'unified' hints at why this differs from single-dimension siblings like tv_volume or tv_power, but it never names tv_status or any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Returns a single snapshot for agent branching' implies a use case (consolidated state for decision-making) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not route the agent away from alternatives like tv_status or tv_state_watch. Usage is inferable but not prescribed.

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