tvh_reception_recoveries

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it never changes settings and never reads files outside the configured state folder. It also explains that journals normally disappear after probes, so their presence signals an abnormal recovery situation.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds useful context about normal behavior, crash recovery, and safety constraints. There is no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

Given that there are no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations already declare the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining workflow context: what pending journals mean, when to inspect them, and that restore_snapshot is the follow-up. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score for a parameterless tool 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it reads pending tuner-isolation recovery journals for this Tvheadend URL. It also distinguishes the tool from probe and restore workflow behavior, making its purpose clear without opening the schema.

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 a clear usage context: normally probes restore settings and remove journals, but after a process or host crash the agent should inspect recorded snapshots and current hardware, then use restore_snapshot. This names the relevant alternative and the condition for escalation, though it does not explicitly state when not 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.