Send Remote Key

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

While annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that each call advances the UI and repeated calls are not a no-op. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand real consequences.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes: what it does, the mutation caveat, and when to use an alternative. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, side effects, and alternatives. It slightly misses potential caveats like device targeting specifics, but the schema covers the device parameter well enough.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example key values and refers to list_keypress_options for the full set, but the enum already enumerates valid values. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 tool sends one ECP remote key to a Roku device, mirroring a physical remote press. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from input_text by explicitly scoping to navigation/transport keys versus text entry.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use keypress for navigation/transport keys, and use input_text for typing characters. This directly names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity.

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