tv_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: discovery requires neither pairing nor subnet scanning. It still omits other traits such as how discovery is performed, whether it blocks, timing, or network prerequisites.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the key purpose and constraint are immediately visible.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation) and there are no parameters, the description is nearly sufficient for a simple discovery tool. It could be slightly more complete by noting the discovery mechanism or any prerequisites, but it covers the essentials.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because there are none to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('LG TVs'), and adds a distinguishing condition ('without pairing or subnet scanning') that separates it from other discovery approaches. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling tool such as tv_devices or tv_select, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 phrase 'without pairing or subnet scanning' implies the context in which this tool is appropriate (lightweight discovery), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings like tv_devices or tv_select. Usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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