fire_tv_press

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 12-key limit, the allowlist restriction, and the fact that evidence is returned after the action. However, it does not mention side effects, invalid key handling, or the meaning of risk and confirmed_by_user parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified for a tool with five parameters, so the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

The description is insufficient for safe and correct invocation. It lacks details on the allowlist, behavior of repeat/transition_delay/risk, confirmation requirements, and the exact post-action evidence returned. With no output schema, these gaps remain unfilled.

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 0%, and the description only adds semantics to 'keys' through 'remote key events' and 'up to 12 allowlisted'. The other parameters (risk, repeat, transition_delay, confirmed_by_user) are unexplained, so the description does not compensate 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 uses a specific verb ('Send') with a clear resource ('remote key events') and includes scope ('up to 12 allowlisted') and outcome ('return post-action evidence'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_tv_type_text and fire_tv_launch.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, alternative tools, or contextual scenarios such as navigation or remote control operations. The only usage signal is implied by the tool's basic function.

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