Get Tv State

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the consolidated nature of the result, defines each returned field, and explicitly states that the tool never fails even when the TV responds partially. It also mentions reachable and stale_fields, giving agents important context about partial data. It does not explicitly claim to be side-effect-free, but the getter semantics make that evident.

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?

The description opens with a one-line summary of what is returned, then gives the precise object shape and a key behavioral guarantee. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 getter with no inputs, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains return fields, the meaning of each, the partial-response behavior, and the consolidated nature that differentiates it from siblings. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need for detailed return-value documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter surface. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, as there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('État consolidé de la TV') and enumerates the exact fields returned: power, input, foreground_app, volume, muted, reachable, and stale_fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that either set values (set_power, set_input, set_volume) or list discrete items (list_inputs, list_apps), making it the only tool that returns a consolidated snapshot.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever the current consolidated TV state is needed, including power status, active input, foreground app, volume, and mute. It does not explicitly state 'use list_inputs to enumerate inputs' or mention when not to use this tool, but the scope of sibling tools makes the intended context reasonably clear.

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