tv-remote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful alias behavior ('ok, center, and enter all map to select') and long-press capability, but does not detail side effects, return behavior, or device resolution nuances beyond what the schema already documents.

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, each conveying distinct information: the action+scope, how to invoke (button + duration), and alias mappings. No fluff or redundancy.

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 command with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could clarify device targeting requirements, but that is handled by shared schema fields. The description is adequate given the context.

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 schema covers 96% of params with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds critical parameter semantics by documenting aliases for the button enum (ok/center/enter map to select), which is not present in the schema's enum definition. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Press or long-press a TV remote or D-pad button,' and scopes it to Android TV, tvOS, or Vega OS. This clearly distinguishes it from generic press/click siblings, and the tool name reinforces the TV context.

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 specifies clear usage contexts: TV remotes on Android TV, tvOS, or Vega OS. It also states the interaction model (choose button and optional hold duration), but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like 'press' or 'longpress' or mention when not to use it. The intended scope is still obvious, so it earns a 4.

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