package_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses validation (checks for manifest) and byte-reproducibility, but omits side effects, permissions, default behaviors, or error conditions. This is adequate but incomplete for a fully transparent definition.

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. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by validation and a key property. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main use case, validation, and a notable feature. However, it does not explain what happens when output_zip is omitted (since it's optional) or describe the return value. The presence of an output schema mitigates this somewhat, but the optional parameter handling remains unclear.

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%, yet the description adds no individual parameter explanations. It only mentions that project_dir is an already-generated directory with a manifest. The optional output_zip parameter is not described, leaving ambiguity about its default behavior. This is insufficient for high-quality tool selection.

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 (zip), the resource (Roku project directory), and the purpose (sideload-ready archive). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the input is an already-generated project, setting it apart from generate_app and sideload_app.

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 the tool is used after generation and before sideloading, providing contextual placement. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use directives or alternative mentions, though the sibling list partially compensates.

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