roku_reference

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.