fire_tv_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive read nature and explicitly notes that no screenshot is taken, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention output details or potential side effects, but for a simple status read, this is adequate.

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 that is concise and free of filler. It communicates the essential purpose and a key distinguishing behavior without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function well. It might benefit from mentioning the output format, but the sibling context and the explicit 'read' action provide enough guidance for an agent. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a status-read tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level semantics because there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Read foreground activity and package-correlated playback without a screenshot.' It uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies distinct resources (foreground activity, playback). The phrase 'without a screenshot' differentiates it from sibling tools like fire_tv_observe, which presumably capture visuals.

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 implies usage for non-visual status checks by specifying 'without a screenshot,' which contrasts with fire_tv_observe. However, it does not explicitly list when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer suitable scenarios, but not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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