Tv Status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' strongly implies a non-mutating read, and listing the returned fields gives useful context, but it says nothing about permission requirements, whether the call is cached/polled, or freshness of the data. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the payload fields compactly enumerated. No filler text.

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 the description need not explain return values, and the one optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to the many overlapping tv_state-family siblings.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Target TV name. Omit for default TV.' The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 ('Get') and resource ('TV status') and enumerates the returned fields (current app, volume, mute, model, firmware), which makes the tool's scope concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as tv_state or tv_state_watch, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 gives no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives like tv_state, tv_state_watch, or tv_insights, all of which plausibly overlap with status retrieval. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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