cast_url

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotency, and destructiveness, and the description adds the concrete behavior of casting arbitrary media. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like replacing current playback, network requirements, or failure modes, so it stays at a basic level.

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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, the accepted input types, and the target device with no filler. Every word adds value.

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 simple one-parameter casting tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, what input it takes, and supported media types. It lacks details on return behavior or preconditions, but these are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, but the tool description adds meaning by specifying that the URL can be video, audio, or stream content, and that it targets the TV. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'URL du contenu a caster'.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Caste') and resource ('URL quelconque') with the target ('sur la TV'), and lists supported media types (video, audio, stream). It distinguishes itself from the sibling cast_youtube by implying a generic URL cast rather than a YouTube-specific one.

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?

The description implies broad usage for any URL, but it does not explicitly say when to use cast_url versus cast_youtube or other casting siblings. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the decision from the sibling names alone.

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