roku_get_status

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.