atv_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the effect of each action (turning off/on) and the mechanism (HDMI-CEC), which is useful. However, it fails to disclose what happens when the 'device' parameter is omitted, whether there are side effects on other devices, error conditions, or any authentication/permission requirements. The transparency is minimal and leaves important behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('Power control') and immediately spells out the two actions and their outcomes. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is easy to scan. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating action descriptions), but it remains concise and effective.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description should still cover how the optional 'device' parameter affects behavior and provide some usage context. It does not explain the device parameter at all, nor does it mention what happens when it is null. The description is adequate for the 'action' parameter but leaves the overall invocation incomplete, especially since no usage guidance is provided.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the 'action' parameter by giving the valid values ('sleep' and 'wake') and their meanings. However, the 'device' parameter is not described at all, leaving its purpose and effect unexplained. The description partially compensates for the schema gap by clarifying the primary parameter but misses the secondary one.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('Power control') and enumerates the two actions ('sleep' and 'wake') with their effects (turns off/on TV/AVR via HDMI-CEC). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, the name and description make it distinct from remote control, app launching, or media playback tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to control power state) by listing the two possible actions and their outcomes. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for similar purposes, nor does it advise when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance on the optional 'device' parameter or when it should be specified.

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