Get tuner status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds some behavioral context by showing the raw status fields returned (ch, lock, ss, snq, seq, bps, pps), but it does not explain what those fields mean or whether the raw result should be parsed via another tool.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient communication. It leads with a technical endpoint path and an unexplained abbreviation list instead of front-loading the tool's purpose.

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-only tool this is still too sparse: there is no output schema, no parameter explanation, and no explanation of the cryptic return fields. An agent can infer the basic purpose from the name and annotations, but the description does not fully support correct selection or invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required integer `tuner`, so the description must carry the burden. The `/tuner<n>/status` fragment hints that `tuner` is a path selector, but it does not state valid range, indexing, or meaning.

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 is only an endpoint fragment plus raw status field abbreviations, relying on the tool name/title to convey that it retrieves tuner status. It does not explain what the status represents and gives no differentiation from nearby tools such as get_tuner_vstatus, get_tuner_streaminfo, or parse_tuner_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 guidance on when to use this tool, when to prefer alternatives, or what prerequisites exist. The many sibling tuner-status/discovery tools make the absence of routing guidance especially costly.

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