ask-rovodev

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Always runs in yolo mode (non-interactive)' and lists supported flags, but does not describe potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens when called beyond invoking the agent. The behavioral transparency is minimal but not absent.

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 two sentences long, each sentence adds value. The first sentence defines the action and invocation method. The second sentence clarifies operational mode and flags. No word is wasted, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, session management implications, or how to structure complex commands. The agent lacks context for effective parameter usage.

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 covers all 12 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description mentions example flags (--config-file, --shadow, --verbose, --restore) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain parameter interplay or default behavior for omitted 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 clearly states the verb 'Invoke' and the resource 'Rovodev agent', and specifies it runs in yolo mode via 'acli rovodev run'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tap-rovodev' only implicitly by naming the command; no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tap-rovodev' or 'session_manager'. It does not specify prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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