roku_debug_console_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully clarifies that the output matches VS Code's 'Roku Debug' panel and includes `log output`, `roArrayPrint`, etc. However, it does not disclose edge cases such as behavior when no script is running, limits on N, or whether this operation is strictly read-only.

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 concise sentences with the core function front-loaded. The second sentence adds valuable context about the output source and content without waste.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and source of the output. It is not missing critical information, though explicit 'when to use' guidance would round it out.

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 for the one parameter is 0%, but the description's 'last N lines' directly explains the meaning of `last_n` beyond the bare integer schema. The default value of 200 is already in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('the running script's console output'), and a scope ('last N lines'). It also distinguishes this from sibling debug tools by relating it to the 'Roku Debug' output panel, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 this tool when you need the script's console output rather than breakpoints, threads, or variables. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention conditions like whether the script must be running.

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