tvh_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds useful context by noting permission errors and naming the exact runtime data exposed, though it does not elaborate on failure modes 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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed item contributes to the tool's scope.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and no parameters, the description is nearly complete: it names the data returned and notes permission errors. Minor ambiguity remains around whether permission errors are returned values or raised errors, but the output schema likely resolves that.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate even with full schema coverage.

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, 'Read,' and names the exact resources: server version, active tuners/signals, and subscriptions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list and mapper_status tools by scope and content.

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?

Usage is implied by the status-oriented verb and listed resources, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as tvh_mapper_status or tvh_api_read. An agent can infer it is for server status but must decide the boundary with siblings on its own.

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