tv-remote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that on Apple TV simulator, media-transport and volume keys are rejected due to HID stack limitations. It also explains the behavior of repeat and multi-step paths, and the return value {pressed, count}. However, it does not mention error handling, concurrency, or rate limits, though these are less critical for this tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, then details usage, examples, and return value. Every sentence adds value. While it is somewhat lengthy, it is appropriate given the complexity of explaining multi-platform behavior and path usage. No fluff.

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 description covers the main use cases, platform differences, and best practices. It explains the return value and advises using describe for screen reading. It does not explicitly mention error handling or timeouts, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage, it is fairly complete. Missing output schema is compensated by describing return format.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how to use single buttons, repeat, and multi-step paths. It includes platform-specific caveats (Apple TV simulator rejecting certain keys) and examples. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond enum values.

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 that the tool presses TV remote/D-pad buttons on specific TV devices (Apple TV, Android TV, Vega). It distinguishes itself from gesture-tap/swipe by explicitly noting that those do not apply on a TV. The verb 'press' and the resource 'TV remote button' are specific and actionable.

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 explicit guidance: 'use this instead of gesture-tap/swipe (which do not apply on a TV)'. It also advises to 'strongly prefer this over multiple tv-remote calls' for multi-step navigation and recommends reading the screen with `describe` before and after. This clearly tells the agent when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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