Get ir target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned value is an IP:port and identifies the underlying /ir/target endpoint, which is useful context, but it says nothing about behavior when no IR target is configured.

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 short sentence with the resource named up front and no filler beyond the code-formatted endpoint path. It is terse rather than verbose, though the terse form is also why the purpose needs inference.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it states the value is an IP:port but not the shape of a not-configured or error response, and it does not disambiguate against the similarly named hdhomerun_get_target. That leaves real gaps for an agent choosing among ~55 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no argument semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument retrieval with no filters or options.

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 fragment names the specific resource — the configured IR-blaster target IP:port — which is more informative than a bare restatement of the title. However, it omits an explicit verb and never distinguishes this from the sibling hdhomerun_get_target or hdhomerun_set_ir_target, so an agent must infer the read-vs-write and ir-vs-plain-target split from the tool name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling hdhomerun_set_ir_target for changing the value, and no statement of prerequisites or when this tool is the wrong choice. The agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name.

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