TV を探索

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds network-specific behavior (SSDP discovery) and the concrete output fields. It is consistent with the annotations and gives an agent a clear read-only model of the operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs in the target, method, and return fields without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple optional-parameter discovery tool, the description covers what it does and what it returns, and the schema covers the timeout. It does not explicitly mention latency or the relationship to list_devices, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

All parameter details live in the schema (timeoutMs range, default, description), and the tool description does not add anything about parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action — discovering LG webOS TVs on the LAN via SSDP — and identifies the returned data (IP, name, model). It does not explicitly contrast this with list_devices or other siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 use context is implied by the protocol and target: an agent can infer this is for scanning the LAN for unlisted TVs. There is no explicit statement about when to use discover_devices instead of list_devices, nor when not to use it.

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