Check signal strength

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it says the tool briefly tunes each channel, samples ss/snq/seq, and releases the tuner. However, it does not explain the transient tuner occupancy, failure behavior if a tuner is busy, or what happens when multiple channels are requested on one tuner.

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 sentence that front-loads the core sequence: tune, sample, release. It is efficient, though the ss/snq/seq abbreviations are unexplained jargon that may not be self-evident without domain knowledge.

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. But with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotation-level detail about tuner contention or channel format, the description leaves important gaps for a hardware-interacting tool. It explains the high-level flow but not enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It implies that channels is a list of channel identifiers to tune and sample, but it says nothing about accepted channel formats, the meaning of the tuner index, or defaults. The tuner parameter is completely unaddressed.

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 gives a concrete behavior: tune each channel, sample ss/snq/seq, release the tuner. That is a clear, specific operation distinct from adjacent tools like hdhomerun_get_tuner_status or hdhomerun_get_tuner_vstatus, which inspect state rather than actively measure channels. It stops short of a 5 because it never states the purpose in outcome terms (signal quality assessment) and does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this versus hdhomerun_get_tuner_status, hdhomerun_get_tuner_vstatus, hdhomerun_get_tuner_streaminfo, or hdhomerun_run_doctor. It also omits prerequisites such as needing a free tuner or authenticated device access. The only implied usage cue is that channels must be supplied.

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