tv_navigate

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, so mutation is expected; the description adds real value by warning it 'can interrupt the current TV activity'. It stops short of saying what is interrupted (playback? an open menu?) or whether the prior state is recoverable, so the disclosure is useful but shallow.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no redundant wording. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be described, but for a non-read-only input tool with 0% schema coverage the definition is too thin: no repeat/count semantics, no connection prerequisites, and no detail on the interruption it flags as a risk.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The 'key' enum is self-documenting, but 'count' (default 1, max 10) is never explained anywhere — an agent gets no confirmation that it repeats the key press, or why the cap is 10.

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+resource ('Send explicit remote navigation') and the schema enum confirms it emits directional/select/back/home/search key presses, which separates it from siblings like tv_text and tv_launch. However, the trailing phrase 'for the requested task' is vague filler that adds no precision.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g. tv_text for text entry, tv_launch for apps), and no stated preconditions such as whether a connection via tv_connect must exist first. The only implicit hint is that it disrupts current activity.

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