roku_scene_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is read-only ('Get') and dependent on a 'running app,' but does not mention potential failure modes, performance implications, or whether a debug session is required. This is adequate 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a concrete use case and developer analogy. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values or argument syntax. It sufficiently explains what the data represents and when it is useful. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance about prerequisites or failure handling, which is not critical for this simple tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema is inherently complete. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and the absence of parameters means no additional semantic explanation is needed. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 identifies the specific verb ('Get'), resource ('live SceneGraph XML (roSceneGraph)'), and target ('from the running app'), distinguishing it from other Roku tools. The comparison to VS Code's SceneGraph inspector further anchors what the tool returns, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by stating it is 'useful for understanding the UI hierarchy and node IDs,' which implies when an agent should invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for inference.

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