tv_ui_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that execution requires tracked origin/app-version match, that invalid context returns a screenshot without executing, and that tracked state is predicted rather than a real TV focus readback, advising re-observation after external remote use. Auth/permission behavior and rate limits are not covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and no obvious padding. The first sentence is awkwardly compressed ('without images only from its tracked origin'), which costs clarity without saving much length.

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 explained, and the behavioral caveats are strong. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the three parameters are left entirely undocumented, which is a real gap for an execution tool.

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% across three parameters (app_id, name, value), and the description never maps to them. 'tracked origin and exact app version' loosely hints at app_id, but 'name' and 'value' receive no semantic explanation at all, leaving callers to guess.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run generated UI addon'), which is more than a tautology. However, the qualifier 'without images only from its tracked origin and exact app version' is garbled and hard to parse, and it never distinguishes this from sibling UI tools like tv_ui_record or tv_ui_anchor.

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 states a precondition ('only from its tracked origin and exact app version') and a fallback ('unknown/expired context returns a screenshot without executing'), but never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling UI tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use routing.

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