roku_power

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.