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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that the tool creates a new ZIP and that existing output must not be overwritten, which is a meaningful safety behavior. It leaves some ambiguity about what happens if the output path already exists, but the core side effect is transparent.

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 description is a single compact sentence with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the non-overwrite constraint is essential and clearly separated.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation and the key constraint. However, the failure behavior when the output path exists and the optional/default nature of the output parameter are not addressed, leaving some gap for invocation correctness.

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 only 50%, so the description needs to add parameter meaning. It does so for the undocumented 'output' parameter by indicating that the output should be a new ZIP and must not overwrite existing files. It does not clarify whether output is optional or has a default, but it compensates reasonably.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build', a clear resource 'a Roku project', and a concrete deliverable 'a NEW ZIP'. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like roku_check, roku_test, or roku_doctor, which do not produce build artifacts.

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 intended usage is implied: this is the tool to call when a build artifact ZIP is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name and the context.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool emits diagnostics and signals failures via nonzero exit codes, which is useful. However, it does not state whether checking has side effects, requires network access, or how output is delivered, leaving gaps.

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 description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key behavioral signal about exit codes.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and failure signaling. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves ambiguity around side effects and selection among related tools, so it is only minimally complete.

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 schema already documents the single 'project' parameter fully, including relative/absolute path behavior, with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('Check') and the resource ('a Roku project'), and adds that it produces diagnostics with nonzero exit codes for failures. This clearly conveys the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like roku_test or roku_doctor.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as roku_test or roku_doctor. It only states what the tool does, leaving the selection context to inference. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it reports capabilities and limitations, but does not mention whether it is read-only, what environment it inspects, whether network access is needed, or what the output looks like.

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 description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately short for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: the agent knows what the tool reports. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so some additional context about the report's content or behavior would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. There are no parameters for the description to clarify, so the baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('installed Roku development capabilities and limitations'). It conveys a distinct diagnostic purpose and differentiates itself from build/test/reference tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with roku_check.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative routes. It implies use when capability information is needed, but leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two useful behaviors: remote-key steps are bounded, and the output must be a new directory. However, it omits side effects such as whether the tool launches the simulator, creates directories, or modifies the source project.

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 description is a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, key input types are listed, and the critical output constraint is appended after the semicolon without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a seven-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only one sentence. It does not explain return values, side effects, how 'steps' and 'output' interact, or what 'screenshots' controls, so an agent cannot fully plan a correct invocation from the description alone.

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 output-must-be-a-NEW-directory clause adds meaning to the otherwise undocumented 'output' parameter, and 'bounded remote-key steps' gives context to the 'steps' array. Yet schema coverage is only 57%, and 'screenshots' remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a real semantic gap.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Preview', and a concrete resource list: 'project directory, ZIP, or BRS file in the simulator'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling build/test/check/reference tools by establishing a unique preview-in-simulator purpose.

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 intended use is implied through the verb 'Preview' and simulator context, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus roku_build, roku_test, roku_check, or roku_reference. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It does disclose a key behavior: never overwrite an existing project. However, it does not explain side effects of creation, permissions, or what inspect returns or changes.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and safety promise without excess. Minor redundancy ('existing project' repeated) and the vague 'inspect' keep it from a 5.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter semantics, output/return expectations, and any interaction with the sibling toolset, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 only 25%, and the description fails to compensate. It implies the 'action' parameter through 'create or inspect' but provides no meaning for 'title' or 'template', leaving those parameters ambiguous.

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 clearly identifies the tool as creating a new Roku project or inspecting an existing one, which distinguishes it from the sibling build/test/check tools. However, 'inspect' is vague and doesn't specify what an inspection entails.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like roku_build, roku_test, or roku_check. The action enum covers create/inspect, but there is no explicit routing to alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

The word 'search' and 'bundled' imply a local, read-only lookup, and no annotations exist to contradict or confirm. However, it does not disclose what happens on a match/no-match, whether results are snippets or paths, or any failure modes, leaving the agent with limited behavioral information.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the definition.

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 simple one-parameter tool this is minimally viable, but with no output schema or annotations, the description does not state what the search returns or how results are presented. It is complete enough to attempt a call, yet missing details an agent would need to interpret the response.

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 schema only defines 'query' as a string with no description, and the tool description does not explain the expected format, accepted syntax, or semantics of the query. The agent must infer that query is the search term from the verb 'search', which is weak compensation for 0% schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'bundled Roku/BrightScript reference material', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like roku_build, roku_test, and roku_doctor. The resource is unique among siblings, removing ambiguity about what this tool operates on.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or what scenario calls for looking up reference material. It simply describes the action without any context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the execution environment and the negative physical-device scope; it does not disclose whether files are mutated, how results are returned, whether network access is available, or any side effects of running tests.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core behavior and a clarifying constraint without filler. It is efficient, but the brevity leaves out useful detail that would improve the agent's understanding.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to allow confident invocation. It omits file path expectations, timeout behavior, the role of expect_logs, and return value or result format, leaving the agent to guess about important operational details.

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 only 33% (timeout_ms), and the tool description mentions no parameters at all. The description does not explain what 'files' should contain, how 'expect_logs' is used, or the meaning of timeout beyond the schema's basic description. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 clear action ('Run') and resource ('BrightScript test files') and specifies the environment ('headless simulator') with an explicit contrast to a physical Roku device. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably distinct, though it does not name or differentiate from sibling tools directly.

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 description implies the tool is for headless simulator testing and explicitly says it is not for physical devices, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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