suggest_content

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 does not disclose what happens with the result (e.g., possibly formatted recommendations), whether it interacts with the device, or any preconditions like the device being paired or online. The description is minimal and leaves out behavioral details.

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 one sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the verb 'Suggest'. No wasted words. It communicates the core action and key inputs efficiently.

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 tool has simple parameters (2, with 1 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the basic inputs but lacks guidance on expected output format or edge cases. Given the simplicity, it's acceptable but could mention that output may be formatted via format_recommendation_cards, which is a sibling.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'deviceId' (media appliance) and 'optional viewing prompt', which adds meaning. However, it doesn't clarify the format of the prompt or how the device ID is discovered (e.g., via list_known_devices). It partially compensates but not fully.

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: to suggest content based on a media appliance and an optional prompt. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recommend_content' and 'search_content' by focusing on a discovered device context. However, it could be more explicit about the difference from 'recommend_content'.

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: when you have a discovered media appliance (deviceId) and optionally a viewing prompt. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'recommend_content' or 'search_content'. Some guidance on when to prefer this over 'recommend_content' would be helpful.

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