get_pvr_config

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

With no annotations, the description provides a long list of error codes, which helps with troubleshooting. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety (read-only), or authentication requirements.

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 main description is concise, but the extensive list of error codes is lengthy and detracts from clarity. While structured, the error codes could be better placed in a separate section or document.

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 get with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimal but adequate. It explains what it returns (current config) and lists possible errors, but could be more informative about the output structure.

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 input schema has no parameters and is 100% covered by the schema definition. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond stating it returns the current config, which aligns with the baseline.

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 tool returns the current PvrConfig. Among many get_* siblings, it is specific to PVR configuration, distinguishing it from others like get_pvr_finished or get_pvr_quota.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate for related tasks.

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