now_playing

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses the use of MediaRemote/JXA and TV.app AppleScript and the cross-validation approach, which reveals dependencies and a behavioral trait not present in the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the queried fields and then states the verification method. Every part earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It explicitly lists title, content ID, position, and playback state, which is the core of what an agent needs. It stops short of detailing return shape or edge-case behavior (e.g., no active playback), so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '조회합니다' (queries) and clearly identifies the resource: current title, content ID, position, and playback state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming exact data fields and the cross-validation mechanism, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool reads.

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 description makes the usage context clear: a read-only query for current playback information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can correctly infer when to use it, especially given the sibling list.

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