TV status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it may rediscover the TV on the LAN if its address changed, which warns the agent about a potential delay/side effect and implies stale-address conditions. It does not say whether the call fails when unpaired.

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 efficient sentence with the core values front-loaded and the address-rediscovery caveat appended. It is a sentence fragment with no verb, which slightly weakens the lead, 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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating each reported field (including enum-like power states). The remaining gap is that it does not describe the response structure or what happens when the TV is unreachable or unpaired.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The field list usefully previews the return contents even though no input exists.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reports (power state, name, model, IP, pairing, volume, mute), so the resource is unambiguous, but it lacks an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with tv_power or tv_set_volume. An agent can infer it is a status getter, but must do so from the name/title rather than the description prose.

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 implied: a zero-parameter read of TV state. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus tv_power (query vs change power) or the other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as pairing being required before it returns useful data.

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