roku_debug_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the prerequisite of a stopped stack frame, but it does not disclose whether execution can have side effects (e.g., modifying variables), whether it is read-only, or what happens if no stack frame is active. The 'Run in Console' analogy implies arbitrary code execution but does not warn about potential mutations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and context, followed by a useful analogy and concrete use cases. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and gives tangible use cases, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, it does not address parameter semantics, side effects, or how to select the correct frame/thread, leaving gaps for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explicit parameter explanations. 'BrightScript code' indirectly refers to source_code, but frame_index and thread_index are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their roles and defaults.

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 ('Execute BrightScript code') and the specific context ('in the context of a stopped stack frame'). It also provides a familiar analogy (VS Code 'Run in Console') and distinguishes this from sibling debug tools like roku_debug_variables or roku_debug_step, which inspect or control execution rather than run arbitrary code.

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 explicit use cases ('Use for reading m properties, querying node children, etc.'), giving an agent a clear sense of when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, stopping short of a full usage guidance.

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