Get tuner streaminfo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one contribution is the return format for detected programs ('<num>: <major>.<minor> [name]'), which is meaningful given there is no output schema, but it omits behavior on an idle tuner or error conditions.

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?

Only one sentence, so there is no bloat, but the most prominent element is a raw endpoint path that an agent cannot act on. A plain purpose clause should have been front-loaded instead of the path.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and it only partially does so — one field format is given, with no indication of what else streaminfo reports or how it differs from tuner status. For a diagnostic read tool in a crowded sibling set, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The '/tuner<n>/' fragment implies that 'tuner' is the tuner index substituted into the path, which is a small but real clarification; valid range, numbering base, and behavior for a nonexistent tuner remain undocumented.

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 essentially the API endpoint path plus the name/status string format, not a plain-language statement of what the tool does. 'Detected programs' hints that it returns per-tuner stream details, but there is no verb and nothing to distinguish it from the many sibling read tools (get_tuner_status, get_tuner_vstatus, get_tuner_debug).

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?

No guidance on when to call this instead of hdhomerun_get_tuner_status, hdhomerun_get_tuner_vstatus, or hdhomerun_parse_tuner_status, all of which occupy adjacent space. No prerequisites (e.g. tuner must be actively tuned) or exclusions are stated.

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