atv_watch

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the core behavior: searching JustWatch, selecting a deep link, opening it, and the fallback behavior without a service. It also discloses the region environment variables. It doesn't mention potential side effects like changing the current app or error handling, but the key behavioral traits are transparent enough.

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 concise, with three sentences that efficiently cover the core action, service selection, and region configuration. It front-loads the primary purpose and avoids irrelevant details. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 has three parameters and an output schema, so return values are covered by the schema. However, the 'device' parameter is completely unexplained, which is a significant gap. The description also doesn't mention error scenarios or prerequisites. For a tool that interacts with external services (JustWatch, Apple TV), more context on what to expect would improve completeness, but the main flow is described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It indirectly explains 'title' (the movie/show) and 'service' (e.g., 'netflix'), but the 'device' parameter is never mentioned or explained. There is no guidance on what values are valid for 'device' or how it affects behavior. The description partially covers 'service' but fails to define parameter semantics adequately.

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: 'Find a movie or show and pull it up on the Apple TV.' It specifies the resource (Apple TV), the method (searches JustWatch, picks a deep link), and distinguishes itself from siblings like atv_play or atv_open_url by focusing on content search and deep-link launching. The mention of service selection further clarifies its unique role.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like atv_launch_app or atv_play, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' advice. Usage context is only implicitly inferred from the description's purpose.

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