tv-remote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses press vs. long-press capability, that ok/center/enter are aliases for select, and the 90-second timeout. Platform-specific duration behavior is left to the schema, but the description adds meaningful behavioral facts beyond a bare action.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action and platform scope come first, then the input hint, then the alias and timeout facts. Every sentence contributes distinct 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 an 18-parameter command with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: action, platforms, alias resolution, and timeout. It does not enumerate device selectors or response options, but those are fully documented in the schema, and the output schema covers return-value expectations.

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 description coverage is 94%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely non-schema fact: ok, center, and enter all map to select, which is not reflected in the button enum. It otherwise wisely avoids repeating parameter details already documented in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Press or long-press a TV remote or D-pad button' and names the platforms Android TV, tvOS, and Vega OS. This clearly identifies the tool's job and distinguishes it from generic siblings like press/longpress, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: TV remote or D-pad button presses on Android TV, tvOS, or Vega OS. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary with press/longpress/click.

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