generate_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that sideload implies zip and requires developer mode. However, it does not discuss the overwrite parameter, error conditions, or whether the tool modifies the original spec. Overall, some useful context but significant gaps.

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 long, front-loading the main purpose and then adding optional features. Every sentence adds value 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 complexity (6 params, nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the core workflow and two optional features. However, it misses documenting assets_root and overwrite, and does not address prerequisites (validated AppSpec) or error scenarios. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description could still be more 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers spec, output_dir, zip, and sideload, but leaves assets_root and overwrite unexplained. With 2 of 6 parameters undocumented, the description adds limited value over the bare 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?

The description clearly states it renders a Roku channel project from a validated AppSpec and writes to output_dir. It also mentions optional zip and sideload. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like package_app or sideload_app, missing a chance to clarify when to use this combined tool vs separate steps.

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 gives usage context for optional parameters (zip, sideload) and explains that sideload implies zip. But it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or when to use siblings. For instance, it does not say 'use sideload_app if you only need to install an existing zip'.

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