tv_status

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

The description explicitly lists the returned fields, making the tool's behavior clear. It implies a read-only operation without side effects. However, with no annotations, the description could be more explicit about non-destructiveness and any prerequisites, though for a simple getter this is sufficient.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the action and key fields. It contains no filler and every word adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essential information. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that it returns a snapshot (vs. watch tools), but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% (parameter 'tv_name' is fully documented in the input schema). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'TV status', followed by a concise list of fields (current app, volume, mute, model, firmware). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_volume or tv_whats_on, which target specific subsets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it is the general status snapshot, but fails to mention that more specific tools (e.g., tv_volume, tv_whats_on) might be preferred for individual attributes.

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