roku_adjust_volume

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.