playback_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of the reported state (title, state, position, duration in ms). However it says nothing about what happens when nothing is playing, what the possible 'state' values are, or whether the call is a safe read. Partial disclosure only.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, then the returned fields. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description covers what an agent needs to select it. The remaining gap is routing relative to the other status tools (tv_status, stremio_desktop_status), which this description leaves unaddressed.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description's field list describes the response, not inputs, which is harmless but not additive.

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?

States a specific verb (Report) and resource (what Stremio is playing on the TV), and even enumerates the returned fields: title, state, position, duration. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like tv_status, but it never names or contrasts with the closer alternatives (tv_status, stremio_desktop_status, stremio_cast_control).

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 at all — no statement of prerequisites, no indication of when this is preferable to tv_status or stremio_desktop_status. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'playing on the TV'.

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