roku_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a UI state change (opening the universal search screen) but never clarifies whether the query is typed/submitted automatically or whether the caller must follow up with roku_type_text, and it says nothing about required device state or error behavior when search is unavailable.

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 free of filler. The Args block is slightly redundant in structure but earns its place given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a state-changing interaction with a TV device and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: whether the search is auto-executed, whether the device must be on, and what happens if the query finds nothing.

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 "query" field is undocumented in structured data; the description compensates by defining it as a search term and giving three concrete examples. It does not specify format constraints, escaping, or whether multi-word phrases are supported differently.

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 ("Abre a busca universal da Roku TV") plus the domain of things searchable (filmes, séries, atores, canais), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. No sibling tool performs search, so confusion is unlikely, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

The intent (find content/actors/channels) is implied by the enumerated search targets, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over roku_launch_app or roku_type_text, nor any prerequisite such as the TV being powered on or the app context. Usage must be inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.