atv_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'List' but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or describe the return format beyond the default indication. This is adequate for a simple list but lacks richer context like pagination or structure.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('List paired Apple TVs') and adds the key detail (default). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly. It states the purpose and the notable detail about default selection; the output schema handles return values.

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 and no schema properties, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('paired Apple TVs'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('which is the default'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like atv_remote or atv_launch_app, which control devices rather than enumerate them.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as atv_scan (which likely discovers devices) or atv_use (which selects a device). The description does not mention exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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