tv_power

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 two important traits: wake depends on network-standby support, and an unreachable device does not prove it is powered off, plus that power state is verified natively. It omits whether power off is graceful vs hard, permission/auth needs, and what wait_seconds actually blocks on.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary capability leads and the caveats follow. Efficient, though the 'Unreachable...' sentence reads as a warning fragment rather than fully integrated guidance.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action and key caveats but leaves the 'status' operation, wait_seconds semantics, and any return/verification detail unexplained. Adequate minimum, with clear gaps an agent would have to guess around.

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 for both parameters. It loosely maps to 'off' (power off natively) and 'on' (wake registered MACs) but never addresses the 'status' enum value or what wait_seconds controls (the default 20 is unexplained).

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 concrete verbs and resource: power off natively, wake registered MACs, verify native power state. Clearly separable from sibling UI/input tools like tv_press or tv_launch, though the third operation ('status') is never named explicitly.

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?

Provides one real precondition ('Wake requires TV network-standby support') and a useful caveat ('Unreachable is not proof of power off'), which implicitly guides when a status check is warranted. However, it never says when to use this tool versus siblings such as tv_launch or tv_observe, nor how to choose between the three operations.

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