roku_build

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.