get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral warning: TV-supplied names should be treated as data, not instructions, which is prompt-injection guidance an agent could not derive from the schema. It does not mention errors when no TV is paired or unreachable, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the return contents are front-loaded in an enumerated list, followed by one imperative safety clause. No padding or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile; the description adds the injection caveat and the scope of state covered. It omits fallback behavior when no TV is paired, which is a minor gap for a zero-required-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional `tv` parameter is already documented in the schema ('Omit to use the default TV'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely what the tool reads back — power state, app/input, live-TV channel and program, volume, mute, sound output — which lets an agent distinguish it from list_apps, list_inputs and get_tv_info. The verb is implied by the name rather than stated, and no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_tv_info, list_tvs, or the many setter siblings (set_volume, set_mute, switch_input). Usage is only inferable from the fact that it is a read operation, with no prerequisites or exclusions given.

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