List Inputs

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the deduplication behavior and explains the meaning of 'connected' and 'active', which helps the agent understand the returned data and infer read-only semantics. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'list' strongly implies it.

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 is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose: listing deduplicated HDMI inputs. Every sentence adds value, and the final sentence provides cross-tool guidance without any filler.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is complete: it specifies the input source, deduplication behavior, all relevant output fields and their meaning, and how to chain the result into set_input. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke and use this tool correctly.

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, so the input schema provides nothing to clarify and the description does not need to explain parameter usage. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output fields instead.

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 the tool returns the TV's HDMI inputs, deduplicated by CEC/HDMI per port, and enumerates the exact fields returned. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling list_apps, which would cover apps rather than HDMI inputs.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned 'name' value with set_input, which is direct and actionable guidance for the intended workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the HDMI-focused scope makes the primary use case clear.

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