MCP Remote Control

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 describes the return format ('formatted list of app names and their IDs') and hints at a read-only operation ('Lists'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles errors. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place by adding value (listing resources and explaining output utility), with zero waste 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and how the output is used, but could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., permissions or error handling) since annotations are absent. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description here.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it does provide context about the output's purpose. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it compensates adequately without redundant information.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available apps and their corresponding Roku channel IDs'), and distinguishes this from siblings like launch_app (which uses the IDs) and get_device_info (which returns device status). It specifies both what it returns and how the output can be used.

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 explicitly states when to use the output ('can be used with launch_app()'), providing clear context for its purpose. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings (e.g., whether get_device_info might also list apps).

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