tv_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful caveat about duplicate IPv4 addresses being ambiguous, which is a real operational trait, but it does not clarify read-only status, return format, authentication needs, or side effects.

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 very brief and front-loads the resource ('Known paired TVs'). The following clause adds a useful caveat. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter tool, though the second clause is somewhat cryptic without context.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool deals with and one ambiguity caveat. However, it does not clarify when to use it over sibling tools, what the return value looks like, or how it relates to tv_discover and tv_select, leaving important context incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to compensate for. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description's reference to selecting by name/ID does not map to any parameter and is more relevant to usage than parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource ('Known paired TVs') but uses a noun phrase rather than a clear action verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It does not explicitly state what the tool does with those devices, leaving the purpose vague and relying on the agent to infer that it returns the known devices.

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 gives some practical guidance ('Select by name/ID; duplicate IPv4 addresses are ambiguous') but does not explain when to use this tool versus sibling tools like tv_discover or tv_select. The usage context is implied rather than explicit, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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