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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention side effects, confirmation requirements, or the meaning of parameters like 'risk' and 'confirmed_by_user'. The description is too sparse to inform the agent about potential consequences or prerequisites.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and object, making it easy to scan. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential details, so it is efficient but 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. An agent would not know how to handle 'risk' or 'confirmed_by_user', nor what the tool returns, making it insufficient for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only illustrates valid values for 'command' (Pause, Rewind, Back, Home, Play) but leaves 'risk', 'transition_delay', and 'confirmed_by_user' completely unexplained, which is inadequate for a 4-parameter tool.

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 clear verb 'Execute' with a specific resource ('one direct remote command') and provides concrete examples (Pause, Rewind, Back, Home, Play) that make the tool's function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool fire_tv_press, which likely overlaps in functionality.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fire_tv_press or fire_tv_launch, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description simply states what it does, not when to choose it.

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 assumes full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the start/stop action and foreground verification but omits critical details such as the destructive nature of 'stop' (which kills an app), required permissions, potential side effects, or what the verification entails. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, earning a high conciseness score.

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 3 parameters (one required) and a no output schema, and the description is minimal. It fails to explain parameter values, error conditions, usage context, or how 'verify foreground state' is performed. An agent would need additional information to invoke the tool reliably, making the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only hints at 'package' through 'one installed Android package' and at 'action' through 'start or stop', but it does not clarify allowed values, the purpose of 'transition_delay', or how these parameters interact. This falls short of the compensation required for low schema coverage.

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 action ('Start or stop'), the resource ('one installed Android package'), and adds a verification step ('verify foreground state'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_tv_press or fire_tv_type_text, which focus on input events rather than app lifecycle management.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer from the tool name and description alone. This meets the minimum bar but lacks the explicit 'when to use' direction expected from a well-documented 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 carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool captures a fresh screen and multiple state components, indicating a read-only observation behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any preconditions, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, highly concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the action ('Capture') and lists the four items being captured without any filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete. It enumerates the elements returned (screen, UI tree, foreground activity, playback state), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. It lacks mention of possible failure modes or edge cases, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline according to the rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description usefully clarifies what the tool does with no 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 the specific verb 'Capture' and enumerates distinct resources: screen, compact UI tree, foreground activity, and playback state. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like fire_tv_status, fire_tv_command, or fire_tv_press, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage when one needs a fresh snapshot of the device state, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like fire_tv_status. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the URI must be allowlisted, the package must be installed, and that it verifies the operation. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or permissions, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word 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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations or output schema, the description should clarify the verification process and any return values. It also omits the meaning of transition_delay. It is adequate but leaves several questions unanswered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides some meaning for 'uri' (allowlisted) and 'package' (explicit installed), but gives no guidance on the 'transition_delay' parameter, its units, or why it exists. This is insufficient for a three-parameter tool.

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 specifies the action (open), the target (an allowlisted URI), and the scope (in one explicit installed package), with a verification step. This distinguishes it from siblings like fire_tv_launch (launching an app) and fire_tv_command (sending commands).

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 intended use is implied: use when you need to open a specific URI in a specific installed package. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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 exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 12-key limit, the allowlist restriction, and the fact that evidence is returned after the action. However, it does not mention side effects, invalid key handling, or the meaning of risk and confirmed_by_user parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified for a tool with five parameters, so the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 is insufficient for safe and correct invocation. It lacks details on the allowlist, behavior of repeat/transition_delay/risk, confirmation requirements, and the exact post-action evidence returned. With no output schema, these gaps remain unfilled.

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%, and the description only adds semantics to 'keys' through 'remote key events' and 'up to 12 allowlisted'. The other parameters (risk, repeat, transition_delay, confirmed_by_user) are unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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') with a clear resource ('remote key events') and includes scope ('up to 12 allowlisted') and outcome ('return post-action evidence'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_tv_type_text and fire_tv_launch.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, alternative tools, or contextual scenarios such as navigation or remote control operations. The only usage signal is implied by the tool's basic function.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-destructive read nature and explicitly notes that no screenshot is taken, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention output details or potential side effects, but for a simple status read, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. It communicates the essential purpose and a key distinguishing behavior without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core function well. It might benefit from mentioning the output format, but the sibling context and the explicit 'read' action provide enough guidance for an agent. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a status-read tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level semantics because there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

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 function: 'Read foreground activity and package-correlated playback without a screenshot.' It uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies distinct resources (foreground activity, playback). The phrase 'without a screenshot' differentiates it from sibling tools like fire_tv_observe, which presumably capture visuals.

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 implies usage for non-visual status checks by specifying 'without a screenshot,' which contrasts with fire_tv_observe. However, it does not explicitly list when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer suitable scenarios, but not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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 must carry the full burden of transparency. It limits the input to 'bounded printable ASCII' and indicates a focused field, but does not disclose behaviors like whether the operation is reversible, if confirmation is required (despite a 'confirmed_by_user' parameter), or what 'risk' entails. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key constraint, achieving maximal conciseness without 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?

Given there are 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It covers only the primary purpose and text type, omitting parameter meanings, safety behavior, return values, and prerequisites beyond focus. This is inadequate for a moderately complex tool.

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 compensate. It only clarifies the 'text' parameter (printable ASCII) and implicitly ties it to the focused field. The parameters 'risk', 'transition_delay', and 'confirmed_by_user' are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without necessary semantics to use the tool correctly.

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 ('Type') and the target ('currently focused field'), and adds a scope constraint ('bounded printable ASCII'). This distinguishes it from siblings like fire_tv_press (button presses) and fire_tv_command (broad commands), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'currently focused field' provides context that a field must be focused before use, implying a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to siblings, so it falls short of full guidance but offers clear situational context.

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