roku_device_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a network read operation against port 8060 and states the XML return format, which strongly implies a read-only, non-mutating behavior. For a simple zero-parameter info query, this is adequate; more detail on failure modes or prerequisites would be nice but is not essential.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes only necessary details: the resource, the port, and the return format. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It names the server and port, and specifies the return content. No critical information appears to be missing.

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 trivially covers 100% of them. The baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unrelated parameter information.

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') and identifies a precise resource ('device info from the Roku ECP server'), plus the output format ('Returns XML with device name, version, firmware'). This makes it immediately distinct from sibling tools like roku_current_app or roku_key, which target different Roku aspects.

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 when to use the tool—whenever device information is needed from a Roku—and adds useful context like the port and return type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference any alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer its place among the siblings.

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