Get program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that – it does not describe what the returned program data looks like, whether a tuner must be locked/active, or what happens when no program is set.

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?

Very short with no wasted prose, but the leading element is an opaque API path in backticks rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does; the useful part ('current MPEG program filter') comes second.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (program number, sub-channel, modulation?) and any preconditions such as tuner lock. It says none of that, and the single required parameter is left undefined, so an agent cannot confidently invoke or interpret it.

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?

There is one required parameter ('tuner') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the value means (tuner index, zero- vs one-based, valid range) or how it relates to /tuner<n>/. The path notation 'tuner<n>' is the only hint, which is insufficient compensation for an undocumented parameter.

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 names the underlying endpoint and identifies the resource as the 'current MPEG program (sub-channel) filter', so an agent can infer it reads a tuner's current program selection. However, it leans on the raw API path rather than a plain statement of the action, and sibling tools like hdhomerun_get_tuner_status or hdhomerun_get_channel are not contrasted.

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_get_tuner_status, hdhomerun_get_channel, or the paired hdhomerun_set_program. The only implied cue is 'current', which hints at a read but is never stated as a usage condition.

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