ssap_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only says 'send a raw SSAP request' without disclosing side effects, error behavior, or that it could potentially disrupt TV state. It lacks transparency on the impact of using this escape hatch.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'Escape hatch' which immediately signals the tool's special nature. The example is placed succinctly within the description.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too brief for a potentially dangerous tool. It does not mention error responses, authentication needs, or when to prefer sibling tools. With many sibling tools, more context is needed for safe usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning: it explains that 'uri' should be a full SSAP URI string (e.g., ssap://audio/getVolume) and 'payload' is an optional object. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it's an 'escape hatch' to send a raw SSAP request to the TV, specifying the verb 'send', resource 'raw SSAP request', and providing an example URI. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific commands.

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 calls it an 'escape hatch', implying use when sibling tools don't cover a needed SSAP method. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, potential risks, or alternative tools. The example is helpful but incomplete.

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