Get filter

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the default filter value (0x0000-0x1FFF) and the underlying endpoint shape. It does not disclose what a non-default or empty filter looks like, which would have helped.

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?

One short, front-loaded fragment with no filler. The trade-off is that brevity here borders on cryptic endpoint notation rather than plain-language explanation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives the default and endpoint but does not describe the shape or units of the returned filter value. An agent can probably call it correctly, but understanding the response requires guessing.

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 compensate for the single 'tuner' parameter, and it only partially does via the '/tuner<n>/filter' endpoint notation. It never states the valid range, indexing base, or whether the tuner must currently be active, leaving the required parameter under-specified.

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 identifies the resource as the tuner's current PID filter and gives the default range, which does distinguish it from the sibling hdhomerun_set_filter. But it is written as a raw API endpoint path rather than a clear verb+resource statement, so the read semantics must be inferred from the name 'get' rather than the description itself.

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 on when to call this versus hdhomerun_set_filter, hdhomerun_get_tuner_status, or hdhomerun_get_tuner_streaminfo. The agent is left to infer that this is the read counterpart to set_filter from naming conventions alone.

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