tv_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral claim beyond that: the call does not navigate the UI or interrupt active playback, which matters for an agent deciding whether it can poll during a live session.

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; every clause carries information. The phrasing "UTC clocks" (plural) is slightly opaque and could be tighter, 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the non-disruption guarantee plus the data domains read. It is complete for a simple read tool, missing only an explicit sibling comparison.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The listed outputs (connection, foreground activity, UTC clocks) loosely preview the return payload but that is covered by the output schema.

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 names a specific verb ("Read") and three concrete resources it returns: connection, foreground activity, and UTC clocks. That is far more informative than the name alone, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tv_playback_status, which likely also reports activity state.

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 only implied: the phrase "without navigating or interrupting playback" suggests this is the safe, non-disruptive way to inspect state. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over tv_playback_status or tv_logs, and no exclusions are given.

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