roku_remote_key

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.