get_current_media

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: that returned metadata is untrusted and that absent titles or playback state do not prove nothing is playing — a non-obvious nullability/false-negative caveat.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the resource and the interpretation caveat front-loaded. Everything stated is actionable or prevents a plausible misread of the result.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description bears the burden of conveying return shape. It names 'metadata and parser context' and warns about missing values, but doesn't sketch what fields to expect (title, artist, album, playback state, source/app), leaving the agent to discover this empirically.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify beyond the schema's empty contract.

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 and resource: read current TV/music metadata plus parser context. It's clearly a read-only query distinct from the mutation-oriented siblings (control_spotify, play_audio, speak), though it never names those alternatives 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?

The word 'Read' and the caveat about interpreting missing data imply usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no pointer to control_spotify for changing playback. The agent must infer routing from the -control vs -read naming.

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