roku_preview

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.