Connect TV

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'Unlocks app lifecycle tools' behavioral trait, which is useful state-changing context, but doesn't describe connection limitations, timeout behavior, platform requirements beyond schema, or any failure modes. For a connection tool with no annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 crisp sentences—one stating the action and identification modes, one stating the unlock side effect. Zero fluff, but 'Unlocks app lifecycle tools' is somewhat vague jargon that could benefit from elaboration, and the connection logic is packed into a single sentence.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It covers the invocation modes and a key side effect, but doesn't mention what a successful connection returns, what errors look like (host unreachable, unknown name), or whether the tool is idempotent. Adequate but with notable gaps for a connection 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (host, name, platform) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds the relational constraint that platform is 'Required with host' (which the schema enum hint also implies) and that name comes from devices.yaml. It adds slight value by connecting parameters to the two invocation modes, but largely leans on the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Connect to a TV') with explicit modes of identification (configured name or host+platform). It also notes a side effect ('Unlocks app lifecycle tools'), which adds purpose context, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_devices.

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 states the two identification modes (name or host+platform) which implicitly tells the agent how to invoke it, and the sibling list_devices suggests a workflow. However, there's no explicit guidance about when to choose name vs host+platform, or when NOT to use this tool. The 'Unlocks app lifecycle tools' hint implies it's a prerequisite step but doesn't spell out a decision rule.

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