tv_app_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one trait ('Unknown routes capture once for learning'), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether route execution can alter device state.

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?

Three dense clauses, tightly packed with zero filler and front-loaded with the primary action. It borders on terse given how much it crams into shorthand.

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 no explanation, but for a 4-param, annotation-free tool whose schema documents nothing, the description is too thin to cover operation semantics or the capture behavior adequately.

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 compensate. It clarifies that value means an advertised-metadata query, an LG-browser URL, or a YouTube ID depending on operation, but leaves app_id and the capture enum (auto/never/always) unexplained beyond the offhand 'capture once' phrase.

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 phrase 'Execute bounded native app route' states an action but relies on jargon ('bounded', 'route') that is not self-explanatory. Combined with the operation enum it is inferable as driving a TV app, but it does not clearly differentiate from the sibling 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?

It does route some operations implicitly ('URL is LG browser only; video accepts YouTube ID'), giving conditional guidance for the open_url and youtube_video paths. But it never names when to use this versus tv_launch or tv_apps, leaving the core selection decision to inference.

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