tv_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits—identity verification and no implicit pairing—but omits whether selection persists, required permissions, side effects, or failure behavior for a selection operation.

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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the constraint is placed immediately after it.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and one constraint. It remains incomplete about what selection returns or changes, and about error conditions.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'device' parameter has no schema description. The description compensates partially by stating it accepts name or ID, but gives no format examples or validation details.

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 states a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('registered TV'), and clarifies the accepted identifier forms ('by name or ID'). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools such as tv_discover or tv_devices, so it falls short of the highest clarity tier.

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 an implied usage context ('Select a registered TV') and one important exclusion ('Never pair implicitly'). However, it does not say when to choose this over alternatives like tv_discover or tv_devices, leaving routing to inference.

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