atv_youtube

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 explains non-obvious behaviors: 'top result plays' for search terms, the default system player via AirPlay, and the human confirmation step when app=True. It also notes the need for a physical remote, which is critical for an agent to know. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with zero 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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds essential details. Every sentence adds value: input formats, default behavior, app alternative, and human-confirmation caveat. No fluff or repetition. It is appropriately detailed without being verbose.

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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers most operational details (input formats, behavior, caveat). However, the device parameter is not mentioned, which is a critical gap since the tool likely targets a specific Apple TV. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing device semantics makes the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters. It thoroughly explains 'query' (URL, ID, or search terms) and 'app' (open in YouTube app instead), but completely omits 'device'. The device parameter is left unexplained, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance. With one of three parameters undocumented, the compensation is incomplete.

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 tool's action: 'Play a YouTube video on the TV.' It specifies the exact resource (YouTube) and scope, and it goes into detail about accepted input formats (URL, ID, search terms). This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like atv_play or atv_open_url, even though those alternatives are not named.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: it explains the default behavior (full-screen via AirPlay) and the alternative when app=True. It also mentions a caveat about tvOS confirmation. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like atv_watch or atv_open_url, so the agent is left to infer when to choose this tool over others. This is clear context but missing explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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