tv_control

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: the 'stop' action only succeeds when playback is verified ended, not on mere key event delivery; volume range 0-15 for 'set'; and enumerates valid actions per category. This provides transparency beyond a simple action listing.

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 concise (single paragraph) and organized by category, though bullet points would improve readability. Every sentence provides useful information; no fluff.

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?

Covers main functionality and a critical behavioral nuance (stop). However, lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., device must be on), error handling, what happens on invalid actions, and whether other actions besides volume set require values. Partial completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explicitly listing valid actions for each category and clarifying that 'value' is used for 'set' actions (e.g., volume). The schema's action description merely refers to tool description, so the description fills that gap.

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 clearly states it controls Android TV across volume, playback, navigation, and power categories. It specifies verbs (up/down, play/pause, etc.) and resource (Android TV). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'play' or 'search', which could lead to ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'play' (for starting playback) or 'search'. The description lists actions but does not specify contexts where this tool is preferred or not suitable. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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