roku_postback

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the target is the running app and that the mechanism is an ECP deep link, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, prerequisites, or what happens when no app is running. For a send/input operation, this is too opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word contributes to stating the core action and mechanism. This is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations and minimal parameter detail, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently decide when and how to invoke the tool. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing usage context, behavioral caveats, and message-format guidance remain significant gaps.

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 schema describes only the type and title of the required 'message' parameter, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not compensate by providing examples, accepted formats, allowed values, or constraints—it merely reuses the word 'message' without adding meaningful parameter semantics.

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 operation ('Send'), the object ('postback message'), and the target/mechanism ('to the running app via ECP deep link'), which helps distinguish it from siblings like roku_launch_uri or roku_key. However, 'postback message' is domain jargon and the description doesn't explain what a postback is, so it falls just 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, conditions, exclusions, or a decision rule, leaving the intended usage only implied by the name and action.

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