アプリ一覧

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure such as output format, pagination, or handling of hidden apps, but it is consistent with the annotation and sufficient for a simple list 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?

The description is compact, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes only useful downstream information. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only listing tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what is returned (IDs and titles) and how the result is used. A minor gap is the absence of an explicit statement that the result is a list, but this is implied.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the device and includeHidden parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 is specific: it returns the IDs and titles of apps installed on the TV, and it explicitly connects the returned id to launch_app. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools like list_channels or get_current_app.

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 provides clear downstream usage guidance by stating that the returned id should be passed to launch_app. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call this tool.

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