Tv Sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real trait beyond the schema — "Resolves once, launches on all targets via asyncio.gather" signals parallel fire-and-forget dispatch rather than waiting for playback confirmation. However, it says nothing about partial-failure behavior, per-TV errors, permissions, or whether playback state is verified.

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 core capability and with zero padding. The asyncio.gather detail is mildly implementation-flavored but does convey parallel dispatch semantics.

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 not be explained, and the schema covers all parameters. Still missing for a 7-param broadcast tool with no annotations: whether group and tv_names are mutually exclusive in practice, and what happens when one TV fails while others succeed.

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 documents all 7 parameters (including the group-vs-tv_names hint). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that — baseline 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?

States a specific verb and multi-target scope: "Play content on multiple TVs simultaneously (party mode)." The multi-TV scope clearly distinguishes it from single-target siblings like tv_play and tv_cast, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "multiple TVs simultaneously (party mode)" implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus tv_play/tv_launch, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the scope wording alone.

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