get_state

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering side-effect safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact state fields returned, including the powerstate enum (On/Standby), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information: the action, the target, and the returned fields. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool returns and the key fields, so an agent can understand the result without additional documentation.

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)Skip, so the input schema carries no semantic burden. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retourne') and a concrete resource ('etat actuel de la TV'), and lists the exact state fields returned: powerstate, volume, muted, ambilight_on, ambilight_mode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling action tools such as power_on, volume_up, and mute.

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 usage for retrieving current TV state but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives. The sibling names are clearly mutating commands, making the distinction inferable, but there is no overt when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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