roku_project

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.