atv_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (scan) and the output (name, model, address), but does not disclose whether the scan is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects on the network or devices. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome. It avoids extraneous detail and earns its place – every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 (zero parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and return fields. It lacks contextual details like network scope, timeouts, or permissions, but these are not critical for a basic network scan. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity, though not exhaustive.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because the absence of parameters makes the description complete on this front.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Scan'), a specific resource ('the network for Apple TVs'), and lists the output fields ('name, model, address'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic actions and provides enough specificity for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like atv_devices or atv_use. There is no mention of alternatives, preconditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when network scanning is appropriate.

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