roku_launch_app

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.