Get tuner vstatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results vary by model/firmware and some devices return "unknown getset variable" — a failure mode an agent would otherwise misinterpret as success.

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 dense, waste-free sentence. It leads with the endpoint path rather than the purpose, which is slightly less front-loaded for an agent scanning for intent, but nothing is extraneous.

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 is the only source of return-value semantics, and terms like CCI and CGMS are left unexplained. Adequate for a thin diagnostic pass-through given rich annotations, but an agent still won't know the response shape before calling.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description, so the bare schema gives an agent nothing. The description partially compensates by framing it as the `/tuner<n>/` path segment, implying an index, but gives no valid range or how to obtain a valid tuner number.

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?

Names the exact endpoint and states what it returns: virtual-channel auth/CCI/CGMS status. That distinguishes it from the other tuner-scoped reads (get_tuner_status, get_tuner_debug, get_tuner_streaminfo) by content, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus tuning diagnostics like get_tuner_status or get_tuner_debug, and no prerequisites. The caveat that results are model/firmware dependent is useful but describes output variability, not usage conditions.

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