tvh_api_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the enforced rejection of mutating paths, the relative-path convention, and that pagination rides in the parameters object. It does not describe error behavior for rejected or unknown paths.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope with examples, the mutation guardrail, and the two parameter conventions. Front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler, though the example list is slightly long for the value it adds.

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 an open-world raw-API passthrough, the description covers usage, safety, and path conventions, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. What's missing is how an agent discovers valid endpoints (e.g. via tvh_get_schema) and what a rejected path returns, which matters for a catch-all reader.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain that 'path' is relative without '/api/' and that pagination goes into 'parameters', which is genuinely helpful. But it leaves the path format (leading slash? .json suffix?) and the shape of the parameters object undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (metadata/enum/grid endpoints) and enumerates concrete examples like bouquets, EPG grabbers, and stream profiles. The word 'additional' signals these are endpoints not covered by the dedicated list_* siblings, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives one clear exclusion – 'Mutating endpoints are rejected' – and implies the tool is for endpoints lacking a dedicated wrapper. However, it never tells the agent to prefer tvh_list_channels or tvh_list_dvr_rules when those exist, so the routing decision against ~38 siblings is left to inference.

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