list_watch_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the merge behavior (TV adapter vs local history), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any permission or device availability requirements, or the format of the returned history. The merge behavior is a positive signal, but key behavioral details (e.g., what happens if TV adapter is unavailable) are missing.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action ('List recent watch history') and adds the merge behavior. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

With 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. The tool likely needs to explain when TV adapter is available, how merging works, and what the returned data looks like. The description gives a high-level overview but is incomplete for understanding the filter logic and data shape, especially since there are no output schema details.

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%, meaning the description adds no explanation of parameters. The schema provides basic details (limit integer 1-100, deviceId string), but the description does not clarify the meaning of deviceId (e.g., the TV device?) or how limit affects merged results. With no parameter info in the description, it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 that the tool lists recent watch history, with a specific distinction: it merges TV adapter history with local MCP history. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like record_watch_event and list_known_devices, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for retrieving watch history, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like search_content or recommend_content, nor any context about when the TV adapter is available or when local history is used. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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