tv_observe

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses side effects of the modes (auto may register/capture unknown apps; always forces a fresh screen), which implies a possible write side effect, but it never states read-only vs mutating intent, permission needs, cost, or what "never" changes.

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 compact sentences, purpose first then mode behavior, with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded, though the extreme brevity leaves real gaps that a slightly longer definition could have closed.

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 described, and there is only one optional parameter. However, the definition still leaves the tool's role relative to tv_apps/tv_discover unclear and does not cover the "never" mode, so it is only minimally complete for its purpose.

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% and the enum values carry no documentation, so the description must compensate. It directly explains the behavior of two of the three enum values (auto captures unknown apps, always requests a fresh screen), leaving only "never" to inference.

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?

"Lightweight app/audio state" tells the agent the resource under observation (app/audio state) but supplies no verb and no scope statement, so it reads more like a noun phrase than a stated action. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like tv_apps or tv_discover, which likely also surface app information.

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 second clause explains what two capture modes do, not when to choose this tool over siblings. There is no guidance on when observation is preferable to tv_apps, tv_discover, or tv_ui_anchor, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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