Parse tuner status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description discloses nothing beyond the input shape: not the return structure, not how malformed lines are handled, not whether errors raise. Listing the expected fields gives some context but leaves behavior opaque.

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 compact sentence with the format up front and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the terseness leaves the usage gaps noted above.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the input format is covered. However, parse-failure behavior and the relationship to the sibling that produces status lines are missing, which matters for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter `status_line` has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It does this well by showing the exact key=value format (ch, lock, ss, snq, seq, bps, pps) the string must follow, though it says nothing about field order tolerance, optional fields, or whitespace.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: parse a tuner status line, and enumerates the expected key=value fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling hdhomerun_get_tuner_status, which fetches the raw status, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 versus hdhomerun_get_tuner_status or hdhomerun_get_tuner_debug. The agent must infer that this consumes an already-obtained status string rather than retrieving one.

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