atv_play

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the extraction-then-AirPlay flow and that playback continues after the tool returns (non-blocking). It also states DRM-protected services cannot be extracted. It does not cover error cases or timeouts, but for a media tool it gives good context.

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 dense but well organized: it opens with the core action, then expands on supported media types, the extraction method, the async nature, and the DRM limitation. Each sentence adds value; it could be trimmed slightly but is not bloated.

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 tool with this complexity, the description covers the key aspects: supported inputs, extraction mechanism, async behavior, and limitations with alternatives. It does not explain the device parameter, which is a notable gap. Since output schema exists, return details are unnecessary, but the missing parameter synopsis pulls the score down.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly explains the 'url' parameter by discussing supported inputs. The 'device' parameter is never mentioned, despite being optional and likely important for targeting a specific TV. The description fails to add meaning for this parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use it.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair ('Play any video URL on the TV') and immediately clarifies the scope: direct media files (.mp4, .m3u8, .mov) and video pages from yt-dlp-supported sites. This distinguishes it from siblings like atv_watch and atv_open_url by specifying exactly what it handles.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: it states what it can play (media files and supported sites) and explicitly names the excluded cases (DRM-protected services) and redirects to alternatives ('use atv_watch or atv_open_url for those'). This gives the agent a clear decision path.

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