List App Connector Functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (name, params array, optional description) and instructs to surface the description verbatim to the user, which is behavioral guidance beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 multi-sentence but each clause earns its place: the source, the output shape, the verbatim-handling instruction, the usage timing, and the parameter. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently packed. 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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return structure (name, params, optional description) and the source. It also explains the usage relationship with appFunction. Given the tool is simple and annotations cover safety, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the device parameter is described in the schema as 'Optional. Roku IP or serial; must match a connected Dev Studio tab when set.' The description simply restates 'Optional device (IP or serial)' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema already carries the full 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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists app connector functions, sourced from RALE getExternalControlFunctions. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on function metadata for appFunction authoring, and names the sibling appFunction as the downstream consumer. The purpose is 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 explicitly says 'Call before authoring appFunction steps so names and param keys/order match', giving a concrete trigger condition. It also notes the optional device parameter, providing context for when to include it. This directly guides the agent on when to invoke this tool relative to appFunction.

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