atv_use

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose any side effects, persistence of the setting, requirements (e.g., does the named device need to exist?), or error behavior. For a mutation tool that sets a default, this is a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and condition. It is concise without unnecessary words, though it sacrifices essential information. The structure earns its place for what it does say, but it remains under-specified.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and a low complexity, the description fails to cover key aspects: it does not explain the parameter, return value, or any preconditions. The output schema exists but the description does not clarify what the tool returns or any side effects. For an agent to use this correctly, it lacks necessary context.

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%, so the description must explain the 'name' parameter, but it does not mention it at all. The parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent with no clue about the expected format or meaning of 'name'.

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 action ('Set') on a specific resource ('default Apple TV') and explicitly scopes when it applies ('when no device is specified'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which deal with remote control, launching apps, power, scanning, etc., by its unique purpose of setting a default.

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 clear contextual condition ('when no device is specified') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It implies the usage context but lacks guidance about alternatives or when not to use it.

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