tv_connect

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

Annotations already establish that this is non-read-only, closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it restricts connection to a known endpoint, notes possible manual pairing first, and says to verify get-state.

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 compact and front-loads the key scope restriction. The telegraphic phrase 'verify get-state' slightly reduces clarity, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain those. Still, for a connection-oriented tool, it leaves the connection lifecycle and the meaning of 'verify get-state' ambiguous.

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 to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4.

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 gives a specific action and scope: connect only to the configured known endpoint, not an arbitrary one. It also adds prerequisites, though the phrase 'verify get-state' is somewhat cryptic and sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 provides implied usage guidance through the scope restriction 'only the configured known endpoint' and the precondition 'Pair manually first if required.' However, it does not name alternative tools such as tv_status or tv_launch, nor does it clearly state when not to use it.

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