list_inputs

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not detail behavioral aspects such as whether it requires the TV to be on, or the format of the output. The tool is read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. It could mention the return type or behavior, but it is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying that inputs are external and lists an example (HDMI), which enriches the understanding beyond the empty schema.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'available external inputs (HDMI, etc.)', making the tool's function clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_input' or 'list_channels'.

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 is straightforward, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The context of sibling tools implies it, but the rubric requires explicit direction for a higher score.

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