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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: 'mute' acts as a toggle (mutar/desmutar) and steps is capped at a maximum of 20. It omits failure modes or device-state requirements, keeping it below 5.

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?

One-line purpose statement followed by a compact per-parameter block; every sentence adds information and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

Both parameters are documented despite zero schema coverage, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. The only gap is device-state/permission prerequisites for a mutation-style control 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the three valid action values (which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string with no enum) and gives the default and max for steps. It doesn't clarify whether steps is ignored when action is 'mute', leaving one small ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Ajusta o volume da TV Roku') plus the mute variant, which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like roku_power or roku_remote_key. It does not explicitly say how it differs from the remote-key tool (which could also carry volume keys), so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied by the semantics of 'up'/'down'/'mute'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over roku_remote_key or roku_get_status, and no preconditions such as the TV needing to be on.

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

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden: it does convey that this is a passive read (no mutation implied) and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful. But it omits operational context such as whether the TV must be powered/reachable, what happens if the device is offline, or any timeout/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the outcome first and then the three payload components. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and with no parameters or annotations there is little else to cover. The only unaddressed gap is failure/availability behavior when the Roku is off or unreachable.

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 baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter language is present.

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?

Specific verb ('Retorna') plus resource ('status atual da TV Roku') and an enumeration of the three data points returned (power state, active app, device info). It is clearly the read-only counterpart to the action siblings (roku_power, roku_launch_app, etc.), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs current TV state before acting. There is no explicit 'use when / do not use when' guidance and no mention of an alternative (e.g. polling vs. event) for obtaining state.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the TV must be on/connected, what happens if the app name is unrecognized (error vs. silent failure), or what the call returns or how long it takes. It only conveys that an app is opened.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is clearly separated from the example list. The ten-item example list is a bit long for a single parameter, but each entry reinforces the accepted name format rather than being 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an action tool with no annotations and no prerequisites or failure-mode description, the definition leaves the agent without key operational context (device state requirements, behavior on unknown app).

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: app_name is documented as either a friendly name or a numeric channel ID, supported by ten concrete examples. It lacks format hints for the numeric ID (e.g., zero-padding) but adds clear meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Abre um aplicativo ou canal na TV Roku' — and clarifies the two accepted identifier forms (name or numeric channel ID). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like roku_list_apps or roku_search, though it never explicitly names them.

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?

Usage is implied: launch an app when you know its name or channel ID. There is no explicit guidance on what to do when the name is unknown (e.g., call roku_list_apps first) or when the device must be powered on, and no alternatives are named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation and the mention of reporting the TV control mode adds useful context beyond the name, but there is no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or whether the listing is cached/live.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the three things it returns. It is efficient, though the combination of apps, channel catalog and control mode in one clause is slightly dense and could be split for readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the description only needs to state what is produced. It does that, though the lack of any routing hint toward roku_launch_app leaves a small gap for a tool embedded in a seven-sibling set.

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 description has no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista os aplicativos disponíveis') and adds two secondary outputs: the known channel catalog and the TV control mode. The purpose is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like roku_search or roku_launch_app, which plausibly touch the same app catalog.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus roku_search or roku_launch_app, nor any note that this is the natural precursor to launching an app. The usage is only inferable from the tool name, not stated in the description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that 'toggle' acts on the current state ('alternar o estado atual'), which is useful behavioral context for a mutating tool. However, it does not say whether the call blocks, how long power transitions take, or whether the new state is reported (the output schema partially covers return values).

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?

One short sentence states the purpose, followed by a compact Args block. There is no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter power tool with an output schema, this is nearly sufficient: the action values are fully explained, and return values are covered by the schema. Minor gaps are the absence of guidance on combining this with roku_get_status and the lack of notes on transition timing.

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 0% and the schema only contains a bare string 'action' with no enum. The description compensates by enumerating all three valid values ('on', 'off', 'toggle') and explaining what each does. It does not mention that 'toggle' is the default, which the schema does provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: turn the Roku Smart TV on or off. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as roku_get_status (a read) or roku_launch_app (an app operation). It lacks nothing essential, but it does not explicitly position itself against those siblings.

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?

Implicit usage only: an agent can infer that this tool is for changing the power state. The description does not say when to prefer this over roku_get_status to check power first, or whether a state query is needed before using 'toggle'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The key vocabulary effectively defines the accepted input domain (a behavioral contract the schema lacks), which is valuable, but nothing is said about case sensitivity, behavior for unlisted keys, error handling, or whether the call blocks until the TV responds.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by a scannable grouped list. The list is long but earns its place given there is no enum in the schema; only the redundant Portuguese/English duplicates ('back'/'voltar', 'mute'/'mudo') feel slightly padded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies the main missing piece: the accepted key vocabulary. Remaining gaps (case sensitivity, unknown-key behavior, overlap with roku_adjust_volume) are minor but real.

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 0% and the single 'key' parameter has no enum, so the description's categorized list of accepted key values is the primary source of parameter semantics and adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string type. It is qualified as 'Teclas comuns', leaving the full accepted set unspecified, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sending a remote-control key to the Roku TV. The purpose is unambiguous, but the description never distinguishes this generic key-sender from overlapping siblings such as roku_adjust_volume (volumeup/volumedown/mute) or roku_power.

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 categorized key list ('Navegação', 'Mídia', 'Volume', 'TV & Entradas') implies the use cases, so an agent can infer this is the general-purpose input tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no direction on preferring roku_adjust_volume or roku_power for those specific actions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a UI state change (opening the universal search screen) but never clarifies whether the query is typed/submitted automatically or whether the caller must follow up with roku_type_text, and it says nothing about required device state or error behavior when search is unavailable.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. The Args block is slightly redundant in structure but earns its place given the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a state-changing interaction with a TV device and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: whether the search is auto-executed, whether the device must be on, and what happens if the query finds nothing.

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 0%, so the "query" field is undocumented in structured data; the description compensates by defining it as a search term and giving three concrete examples. It does not specify format constraints, escaping, or whether multi-word phrases are supported differently.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Abre a busca universal da Roku TV") plus the domain of things searchable (filmes, séries, atores, canais), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. No sibling tool performs search, so confusion is unlikely, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 intent (find content/actors/channels) is implied by the enumerated search targets, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over roku_launch_app or roku_type_text, nor any prerequisite such as the TV being powered on or the app context. Usage must be inferred.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that input is per-character, implying slowness and that an on-screen field must already be focused — but it never states that prerequisite, what happens if no field is focused, or whether existing text is appended or replaced.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in a single sentence. The Args block restates the schema but is short and standard; nothing is padded or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter interaction tool the description covers what it does and roughly when, leaving only focus/prerequisite state to inference with no annotations to back it up.

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 0%, but there is only one required, self-evident string parameter, and the Args stanza confirms it is the text typed onto the TV screen. That is sufficient for a single trivial parameter, though it adds no constraints such as length or character-set limits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: types text on a Roku TV, character by character. The mechanism (simulated keystrokes) is a meaningful detail that separates it from simply issuing a search. It does not explicitly contrast with roku_search, though the 'filling search fields' note implies the boundary.

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 parenthetical 'ideal for preenchimento de campos de busca' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling roku_search, which is the obvious alternative for querying content. The agent must infer the split itself.

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