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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly defines the supported app set and discloses the deep-link/profile limitation. It stops short of stating error behavior when an unsupported app name is passed, but for such a simple launcher this is largely sufficient.

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 with no filler: the action and allowed values come first, and the limitation with routing to the sibling comes second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter TV app launcher, this is complete: the agent knows what to call, which values are accepted, and what to use instead for deep links/profiles. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here because the tool is a simple side-effecting launch command.

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?

The input schema only says 'App name', while the description provides the actual accepted values: youtube, youtube_music, youtube_kids, netflix, disney, prime, spotify, jellyfin, skyshowtime, and hbo. This is concrete semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a clear action (launch) and resource (app on TV), then enumerates specific supported app names. It also distinguishes itself from tv_play by explicitly saying deep links and profiles are out of scope.

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?

Explicitly says to use tv_play when deep links or profiles are involved, which gives the agent a firm routing rule. The supported app list also tells the agent exactly which inputs are valid for this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description states that the tool sends a key press and enumerates accepted key names, which covers the direct behavior. It does not disclose invalid key handling, connection requirements, or what the call returns, though for a simple key-press action this is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.

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?

A single introductory sentence followed by a compact list of keys. The verb/object pair is front-loaded, and every word contributes useful information. No filler or redundancy.

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 essential parameters (key, count, delay) are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the accepted key set. For a stateless remote-control action with no output schema, only minor details like error/return behavior are missing, which are not critical 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults for count and delay. The description adds value by enumerating the allowed key names, which the schema does not provide as an enum, helping the agent choose valid inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('remote control key press to the TV') and lists valid key names, making the function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like tv_play or tv_power, but the generic key-press scope is distinguishable.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions alternatives or when tv_key should be preferred over dedicated siblings such as tv_power, tv_volume, or tv_play. The overlap between the key list and these sibling tools creates ambiguity that is left unresolved.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose non-obvious automatic behaviors: deep linking, force-stops, and automatic profile selection. However, it does not warn that force-stopping may interrupt currently running apps or that the TV may need to be powered on.

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?

Three short sentences cover the core action, automatic behaviors, and supported content types without unnecessary detail. Every sentence contributes useful information and the most important verb-resource pair is front-loaded.

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 content playback tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it: what it does, what content types it supports, and key automatic behaviors. It could mention failure or status behavior, but that is less critical for a fire-and-play command.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains the title, music, profile, and service parameters well. The description adds only a generic reference to automatic profile selection, which adds little beyond the structured definitions.

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 and resource: 'Search for and play content on the TV.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning automatic deep linking, force-stops, and profile selection, which separates it from tv_search, tv_app, and other TV control tools.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Use for shows, movies, and music') and states the scope of what the tool handles. It does not explicitly contrast with tv_search for search-only requests or tv_app for direct app launching, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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

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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema by explaining that 'on' performs wake and WOL if needed and 'off' triggers standby. It does not disclose every edge case (e.g., what 'status' returns, idempotency), but for a simple power control tool with no annotations, it provides meaningful insight into operation semantics.

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 extremely compact, front-loading the main purpose ('Control TV power') and then listing the actions in a clear, scannable format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and simple action semantics, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, the allowed actions, and behavioral notes for key actions. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of return values for 'status', but the action name and overall context make it fairly obvious.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, the description enriches the 'action' parameter by associating each enum value with a behavioral outcome. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Power action' label, helping the agent pick the right value with greater confidence.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Control TV power') and enumerates the exact actions (on, off, toggle, status), making it immediately clear this tool manages TV power. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tv_play, tv_volume, and tv_key, which handle other functions.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose and the sibling list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. An agent must infer that power-related actions belong here rather than getting a direct 'use this when...' statement or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses that the tool does not play content and returns available services plus deep links. This gives the agent a clear side-effect profile and expected output. It does not cover edge cases like no results, but that is not critical for a search 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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and limitation are front-loaded, and the special-case music hint is efficiently appended.

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 two-parameter search tool with a rich schema, the description covers the essential points: no playback side effect, what is returned, and the special music variant. Nothing important is missing 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that type 'music' is for Spotify track search, which goes beyond the bare enum. It also frames 'title' as the content to search for.

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 states a specific action ('Search for content'), a clear resource ('streaming services'), and an explicit scope boundary ('without playing'). This cleanly differentiates it from the sibling tv_play tool.

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 phrase 'without playing' tells the agent this is for discovery rather than playback, implicitly distinguishing it from tv_play. It also gives a concrete usage hint for the 'music' type. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the ADB key-repeat mechanism, supports repeatable up/down steps, and notes that set targets an absolute level. It does not mention result feedback or edge cases, but the core side effects are stated.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence with a concise action list. Parenthetical modifiers keep it compact while preserving important distinctions like repeatability and absolute level.

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 one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention what the tool returns or confirms after an action, but overall the action semantics and parameter mappings are adequately covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'absolute level' and 'ADB key repeats,' but these mostly restate or slightly extend what the schema already says for 'level' and 'steps.' No significant new parameter meaning is added.

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 identifies the resource (TV volume) and the specific actions available (up, down, mute, unmute, set). It is distinct from sibling tools like tv_power, tv_play, and tv_key without needing their schemas.

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 states what the tool controls but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tool names help by contrast, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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