stremio_tv_pair

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 Android 11+ requirement, the code length, the host default, and that connect_port triggers a follow-up connection. However, it omits prerequisites (wireless debugging enabled, network reachability), failure/timeout behavior, and the fact that this establishes persistent state on the device — meaningful gaps for a pair/session-establishing tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by only the parameter clarifications that add value. No filler or restated schema noise.

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, and the description covers all four parameters plus the conditional connect flow. It is only slightly incomplete for a stateful pairing operation because prerequisites and failure modes are unstated.

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 must compensate, and it nearly does: pairing_port is defined as the port beside the pairing code, host has a stated default (ANDROID_TV_HOST), connect_port has both meaning and conditional behavior, and pairing_code maps to the 'six-digit wireless code'. Only minor type/format detail is missing, so it falls just short of fully self-sufficient.

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 and resource ('Pair adb with an Android 11+ TV') plus the required credential ('six-digit wireless code'), which is unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tv_control, tv_status, and tv_screenshot, which operate on an already-paired device.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional rule — pass connect_port when the TV exposes a separate wireless debugging port — which tells the agent when a non-default path applies. It lacks any explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance (e.g., relationship to tv_control/tv_status as the follow-up step), so it stops short of a 5.

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