tvh_hardware_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses that recursive expansion returns actual UUIDs, settings, descriptions and option metadata, and clarifies the read-only nature of hardware discovery. Rate limits, pagination and auth needs are not mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the resource enumeration before the calling semantics. Every clause earns its place by adding either scope, usage or a capability boundary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and the description still usefully previews what recursive mode yields. The remaining shortfall is max_depth behavior (default 8, recursion depth limiting) plus no hint about how deep or large the tree can get.

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 parameter burden, and it does for two of three: uuid semantics ('root' vs a device UUID) and recursive=true expansion. max_depth is never mentioned and must be inferred from its title and default of 8, which is the one real gap.

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 opens with a specific verb plus an enumerated set of hardware resources (adapters, frontends, satellite inputs, LNBs, switches, rotors, Unicable nodes), which is far more distinctive than the generic tvh_list_* siblings. It is clearly a hardware-topology read tool rather than a channel/mux/network listing, though it never names a sibling such as tvh_get_node to draw the boundary 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 concrete usage context for the calling pattern: uuid='root' enumerates adapters, a device UUID enumerates its children, and recursive=true expands downward. It also draws a capability boundary ('Physical tuners are discovered by Tvheadend/its drivers, not created by this tool'), which implicitly tells the agent not to reach for this tool to provision hardware. It stops short of naming an alternative when a single node is wanted (e.g. tvh_get_node).

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