roku_current_app

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose any edge cases such as behavior when no app is running, potential errors, or performance characteristics. It is minimally transparent but lacks rich 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 a single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and specifies the resource immediately, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool with an output schema, this description is largely complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose and benefits from the output schema covering return values. The main gap is the lack of usage context relative to siblings, but that is already addressed under Usage Guidelines.

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 schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. No additional information is necessary.

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 'Get' with a clear resource: 'the currently-running app's title, version, etc.' This clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like roku_device_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 instead of alternatives. The description simply states the action without any context about conditions, exclusions, or comparing against sibling tools. This is a clear gap.

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