Get lineup

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint formats and JSON field set, but omits auth requirements, error behavior, and what XML or M3U responses contain.

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 with the endpoint and purpose front-loaded, followed by useful JSON field details. The parenthetical provenance is compact and no sentence 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 simple read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, format choices, and JSON return fields well enough to call it correctly. It leaves some gaps around XML/M3U response content and whether lineup availability depends on location state, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 single fmt parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Its .{json,xml,m3u} notation implies the allowed formats and the second sentence adds JSON-specific field meaning, but it does not explicitly map fmt to response behavior or explain differences between JSON, XML, and M3U output.

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 retrieval operation: GET /lineup and explicitly calls it 'the channel list.' It is clearly not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as hdhomerun_get_channelmap or hdhomerun_get_lineup_status.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from 'channel list' whether this is the right tool versus hdhomerun_get_channelmap, hdhomerun_get_channel, or hdhomerun_get_lineup_status.

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