tv_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the notion of a "bounded" result set and an optional filter, without saying what the bound is, how matching behaves, or how results are ordered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the filter qualifier is attached to the right noun. It is efficient, though so compressed that it reads slightly like a label rather than guidance.

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 explained, and the tool is simple with two optional parameters. Still, for a discovery tool the description should say what the bound on results means and how the filter matches, both of which affect correct invocation.

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 carries the burden for both parameters. It does identify the query as a package-name filter and flags the limit as bounded, which is real added meaning, but it omits the 100 maximum, the default of 50, and whether query matching is substring or exact.

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 verb ("Discover") and resource ("installed app package names"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tv_launch or tv_status. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can place it 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The natural workflow (list packages, then pass one to tv_launch) is only inferable from the resource name, not stated.

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