選局

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the main effect, accepted channel identifiers, and the automatic switching behavior, but it omits side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the requested channel is invalid.

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 short and front-loaded with the core verb, followed by relevant examples. Every sentence adds useful information, though it could be slightly more structured by separating input semantics from behavioral notes.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it lacks usage exclusions and edge-case behavior (e.g., already on the requested channel, device not powered on), and the large sibling set makes the absence of usage guidance more noticeable.

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 schema already covers both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by giving concrete examples of valid channel values (011, 41, NHK総合, テレ東) and clarifying that channelId is also accepted, which goes beyond the schema's terse '番号 / 局名 / channelId'.

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 the verb and resource: 'チャンネルを切り替える' (switch channels) and specifies the accepted channel forms (number, station name, channelId). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like channel_up/channel_down or watch_tv, so it falls just 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The note about automatically switching when not viewing broadcast hints at behavior, but it does not tell the agent when to prefer set_channel over channel_up, channel_down, or watch_tv.

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