Scan Network for Roku Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool 'does not connect devices' and explaining the network scan nature, which is relevant context beyond the structured hints. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, the scope is stated, and the sibling distinction is given in the second sentence. Every word contributes to agent decision-making.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, but the description covers purpose, side effects (none destructive), usage alternatives, and follow-up actions. The return value (discovered devices) is implicitly clear from 'Discover Roku devices'. An agent has all necessary information 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 description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (timeoutMs and includeSubnetScan) are already well-documented in the schema. The description mentions SSDP and subnet HTTP sweep, which loosely maps to the parameters, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Discover' with the resource 'Roku devices on the local network' and specifies the method (SSDP multicast and optional HTTP sweep). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming connect_device (for opening a tab) and list_devices (for known devices), so an agent can unambiguously select the right tool.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use this to FIND unknown devices' and directs to list_devices for already-known devices. It also notes the follow-up action with connect_device, giving a clear workflow. No inference is required.

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