roku_debug_protocol_info

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 clearly indicates a read-only behavior via 'Show,' which is good, and it scopes the operation to the connected debugger. However, it does not disclose what happens when no debugger is connected, whether any side effects occur, or how errors are surfaced. For a simple informational tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Show') and then specifies the exact subject matter ('connected debugger's protocol version and supported features').

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 informational tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the debugger scope and the specific information returned. A small gap is the lack of an explicit precondition statement about requiring an active debugger connection, though 'connected debugger' partially implies this.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the returned information covers protocol version and supported features, which is more than the empty schema alone conveys.

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 ('Show') and resource ('connected debugger's protocol version and supported features'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling debug tools like roku_debug_threads or roku_device_info by focusing on protocol-level introspection rather than runtime state or device info.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus its many debug-related siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or a typical workflow position, such as 'call this before using debugger commands to verify protocol support.' The only implicit context is the phrase 'connected debugger,' but no actionable guidance is provided.

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