atv_remote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action set and cautions about the lack of visual feedback, which is valuable. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., potential to change volume, suspend, etc.), error handling for invalid actions, or whether the operation is synchronous. The warning is good, but other behavioral aspects remain opaque.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and list, then a concise warning. Every word earns its place. It avoids extraneous detail and is immediately scannable by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple but has two parameters, and the description omits the 'device' parameter semantics. It also does not clarify what happens after pressing (e.g., whether there is a response or if the press is fire-and-forget). The presence of an output schema may cover return values, but the lack of device explanation and any error behavior makes the definition incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates valid values for the 'action' parameter, which is the required one. However, the 'device' parameter is not addressed at all; the description gives no hint about its purpose or default behavior. This partial coverage leaves a gap for the second parameter.

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 ('Press'), a resource ('a remote-control button'), and enumerates all valid actions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like atv_launch_app or atv_open_url, which handle other TV control actions. An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope.

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 usage for controlling playback/navigation via remote buttons and offers a clear warning against blind pressing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other actions, but the context and sibling list make when to use this tool obvious. The warning about not seeing the TV screen provides important context for safe usage.

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