List TVs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool handles both configured and live-discovered TVs, and includes reachability info, which adds some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether this performs network discovery, how long it may take, whether it requires prior configuration, or what 'reachability' entails (does it ping each TV?). The lack of annotations makes these gaps more significant.

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?

A single sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key information (what is listed) and adds the technical brand/platform detail (Samsung Tizen / LG webOS) plus the meaningful differentiator (reachability) that helps an agent understand the result set. Highly efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the device brands/platforms and what the listing includes (reachability, configured and live-discovered). Minor gaps exist around what fields the returned list contains and whether discovery is active, but given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential context an agent needs.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. By the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description appropriately needs no parameter elaboration since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 ('List') plus a clear resource ('configured and live-discovered Samsung (Tizen) / LG (webOS) TVs with reachability'). It clearly communicates what is returned. It distinguishes itself from the sibling connect_device (which would be connection-oriented) by focusing on listing existing devices rather than establishing connections.

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 implies this is used to enumerate TVs before connecting to one, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs connect_device or when not to use it. No explicit alternative is named or usage context (e.g., 'call this before connect_device') is given. The purpose is clear enough that usage is largely implied rather than stated.

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