Get target

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the returned value is a UDP/RTP streaming target rather than an arbitrary string, but says nothing about failure modes when a tuner has no active target or about authentication requirements.

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 clause with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is essentially only one sentence and no front-loaded usage framing. Compactness here comes at the cost of completeness.

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 read tool with a required index parameter, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should say what the target value looks like (e.g. IP:port or 'none') and how to obtain a valid tuner index. Neither is present, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's result or its parameter domain.

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 single required 'tuner' parameter is undocumented in the schema; the description only indirectly hints at it via the /tuner<n>/ placeholder. It does not state whether the value is a zero-based index, how to enumerate valid tuners (e.g. via hdhomerun_get_tuner_status), or what happens for an out-of-range value.

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 (the current UDP/RTP streaming target) and ties it to the /tuner<n>/target endpoint, but the verb is only implied by the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling hdhomerun_set_target or hdhomerun_get_ir_target, so an agent must infer which side of the read/write pair this is from the 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 statement of when to call this versus hdhomerun_set_target (its write counterpart) or hdhomerun_get_ir_target, and no prerequisites such as authentication or tuner availability. Usage is only inferable from the name prefix.

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