tv_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral context—it is a connectivity probe that proves whether adb can reach the device—but says nothing about being read-only (implied only), permissions, auth, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences with the field list front-loaded and the diagnostic guidance second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a zero-param diagnostic tool has few moving parts. The description covers what it reports and when to run it, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only the read-only/side-effect profile is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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 (the TV) and enumerates the exact fields returned: model, Android version, Stremio version, power, volume. An agent instantly understands it is a read/diagnostic tool. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from tv_control or playback_status, keeping it from a 5.

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 explicit context: 'Run this first when a TV tool misbehaves; it proves whether adb can reach the device at all.' This is clear when-to-use guidance tied to a diagnostic scenario. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls shy of a 5.

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