atv_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the focus prerequisite and gives a minimal example. It leaves unspecified what happens if no field is focused, whether text is appended or replaces existing content, or any device parameter behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clarifying example. There is no wasted wording, and the critical precondition is stated succinctly. The structure is highly efficient.

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 simple tool with an output schema (which may document return values), the description covers the core action and a key precondition. However, it omits any explanation of the 'device' parameter and error behavior when no field is focused. These are material gaps that prevent full self-contained usage, making it only partially complete.

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 explain parameters. It implies the meaning of 'text' through the action, but 'device' is completely unexplained—its purpose, whether it selects a specific Apple TV, or how it interacts with the action. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Type text into the focused on-screen text field') with a specific verb and resource, and provides a relatable example (search box). It is distinct from sibling tools like atv_remote or atv_play, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a crucial precondition—'The field must already be focused on screen'—which guides when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, such as using atv_remote for remote commands. It implies usage but lacks full differentiation.

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