RoTerminal

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world false; the description adds return content: historical place yesterday, movement, best place, days on chart, country/device scoping. No auth or rate-limit notes are present, but for public read-only data this adds useful behavioral context.

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?

It front-loads the resource, then organizes by query mode, which helps parsing. The opening sentence is dense and some clauses repeat scoping details, but the content remains useful rather than padded.

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 6-param, no-output-schema tool, it explains the main modes and returns well, including historical chart data. It does not cover behavior when both chart and game are supplied, and relies on schema for limit/device details, so one minor behavioral gap remains.

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 100% and documents each parameter, so baseline is 3; the description adds examples and syntax beyond schema, such as jp-up-and-coming and country-prefixed chart IDs, and explains game placement output. It leaves device/limit/genre semantics mostly to schema, so not a 5.

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 states the resource (Roblox charts kept by RoTerminal) and three query modes, so an agent knows it retrieves chart/game placement data. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like top, trends, rising, or game, despite naming chart types that overlap with them.

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?

It gives concrete mode selection: no chart/game lists charts, countries and devices; chart returns that chart's games; game returns all placements. It lacks explicit when-to-use alternatives like top or trends, but the parameter-condition routing is clear.

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

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not openWorld), lowering the bar. The description earns credit by disclosing the returned payload in detail (players, 24h delta, momentum, genre place, latest update result, 7-day player line), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence leads with the core operation ('Two to five Roblox games side by side now') then lists the compared dimensions with no filler. The dense dimension list is slightly heavy but every element is meaningful.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-parameter read tool this is largely complete; only the absence of guidance on choosing it over `game`/`top` is a minor gap.

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 100% and the `games` property already documents accepted identifier formats (name, universe id, link, place id) plus the 2-5 bounds. The description only restates the 'two to five' constraint and adds no syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific operation (comparing 2-5 Roblox games side by side) and enumerates exactly what dimensions are compared: players, 24h change, momentum, genre place, latest update, and a 7-day trend. An agent can distinguish this multi-game comparison from the single-game `game` sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It conveys the 2-5 game scope but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives like `game` (single) or `top` (ranking). The 'now' wording hints at real-time data but the agent must infer that this is the right tool when comparing several games.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: days are New York-timezone based, results are newest-first, and the returned window depends on the caller's plan and on a tracking start date of Sep 27 2026. It stops short of describing what happens on invalid inputs or whether days with no data are omitted.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the identity of the tool and its ordering/timezone are front-loaded, and the plan-based window constraint follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return fields (average, peak, low, visits, events) and the ordering convention, and it discloses the Free/Pro data window and tracking start date. Largely complete for a two-parameter read tool, though error/empty-result behavior is unmentioned.

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 100% — both parameters are documented, including the 1–400 range, default of 14, and the Free cap of 7. The description restates the Free/Pro window but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"One game’s players day by day" states a specific resource (daily player metrics for a single game) and enumerates what comes back (average, peak, low, visits, events), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings like my_game_days or series, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this returns a historical daily view for one game, and the Free/Pro window note implies when results will be truncated. There is no explicit "use this instead of X when Y" guidance against siblings such as my_game_days, charts, or series.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that results are pre-computed ('already worked out') and enumerating what each entity type returns, which helps the agent anticipate payload breadth.

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 key intent is front-loaded, but the central sentence is a very long, comma-chained enumeration that is hard to parse. It earns some of its length by describing return contents in the absence of an output schema, yet it could be trimmed or structured into bullets for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly across games, studios and people. Combined with the parameter and unknown-name guidance, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly for a complex aggregation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and its accepted formats. The description mostly echoes these (name-for-unknown-kind, entity groupings) rather than adding syntax or behavioral nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific action and scope: aggregate everything RoTerminal has on up to 4 games, 3 studios and 3 people in one call. It clearly distinguishes this bulk fetch from the per-entity siblings (game, studio, person) an agent would otherwise call individually.

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 phrase 'in one call' and the per-entity maxes imply this is for bulk requests, and 'A name whose kind you don't know goes in `name`' gives a routing hint for one parameter. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over calling game/studio/person directly, nor any exclusion conditions.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds real behavior: results are ordered best-guess-first, each carries a "how to read it further" pointer, people are matched regardless of typed form and are labeled member/Roblox/both, and supplying `context` reorders tied people ahead. It also discloses the `ask` sentinel for the two-people tie case, which an agent could not infer from the schema. Minor gap: no mention of result limits or what happens on a total miss.

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 purpose and the primary routing rule are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence conveys distinct information about resolution behavior. Some phrasing is dense and idiosyncratic ("each with how to read it further", "`ask` means two people fit"), which costs a bit of clarity but not much length.

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?

With only two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably: ranked candidates, best guess first, with kind labels and continuation pointers, plus the `ask` outcome. What's still vague is the concrete shape of a candidate (id? canonical url? type field), which matters for a resolver whose whole job is producing something downstream tools can consume.

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 100% and both parameters are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value on `context` by explaining its effect (people tied to the game/studio come first) rather than just its meaning, but it adds nothing about `query` beyond the schema's "name, @username, id or link, as it was written."

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 names the verb (resolve a name/link/id) and the full set of resources it can resolve: games, studios, Roblox groups, people, and topics. It also distinguishes itself from the direct-lookup siblings (`game`, `studio`, `person`) by framing itself as the disambiguation step that returns ranked candidates. The tool name `find` is generic on its own, but the prose removes ambiguity.

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?

"Use it first for any name that may not be a game" gives a clear routing rule, and the example ("kuzu" is the studio KUZU) shows when the agent should not assume a game. It also states that pasted roblox.com/roterminal.co links or ids go straight through, which is a concrete invocation condition. It stops short of naming the alternative for the known-game case (presumably `game`), so the exclusion is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the tracking window start date (Sep 27 2026) for the 'since tracking began' high, the exact high windows (24h, 14d, all-time), and that update entries include post-update player movement. It omits any note on cost, latency, or response size for this large aggregate.

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?

Everything stated earns its place as return-content disclosure for a tool with no output schema, and the key framing is front-loaded. However, it is delivered as one ~90-word run-on sentence with no sentence breaks or grouping, making the long return list harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 rich single-game aggregate with no output schema and one 100%-documented parameter, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating essentially every returned section plus the spark_7d series. Missing only edge details such as behavior for an invalid/unresolvable game reference or the response's size/shape.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'game' accepts a name, universe id, Roblox link, place id, or roterminal.co/g/ link. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 states precisely what the tool returns for a single Roblox game — live players, 1h/24h change, highs, momentum, 7-day average, genre, developer, updates, rivals, chart placements — which is far more specific than the bare name 'game' or title 'A game now'. The closing line 'Start here for any question about one game' implicitly separates it from multi-game siblings like compare, though it never names them.

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?

'Start here for any question about one game' is an explicit when-to-use instruction that gives the agent a clear routing rule for this aggregate dashboard tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g., when you need multiple games or historical-only data, use compare/trends).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context beyond that: it enumerates the returned measures (player counts, share of all players, day-over-day change, game count) and reveals that it returns embedded subgenres and biggest games, which is the only source of return-shape information since there is no output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with scope ('Every genre on Roblox now') and then lists the measures. It is dense rather than padded, though the colon-list runs long and would read better as a short structured list.

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 zero-parameter, read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-value inventory an agent needs to decide whether the data is useful. It stops short of stating completeness guarantees (e.g. that all genres are always returned in one call) or any size/rate behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading or missing argument information is present.

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 names the resource (genres on Roblox) and enumerates exactly what it returns, so an agent can tell this is the all-genres snapshot tool rather than a per-game or per-chart tool. It never uses an explicit verb ('list'/'get'), and it does not name a sibling, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of what this covers versus 'top', 'trends', 'charts' or 'compare', and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the sibling names alone that this is the genre-level aggregate rather than a time-series or ranking tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuine context: facts carry sources and dates and are 'kept current', which tells the agent how to trust and cite the output. No mention of staleness windows or limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and followed by a long parenthetical topic inventory that is informative but bulky. The critical action semantics are pushed into a trailing sentence, and the sentence is dense enough to be hard to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what results look like (facts with source and date, change deltas). With a 6-parameter, 0-required tool, the only uncovered element is the `history` flag's effect.

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 83%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by mapping parameters to actions ('search (q, optional topic), fact (id), changes (what changed since a day, optional q and topic)'). The `history` parameter is never explained, which is the remaining 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?

States a specific resource (Roblox platform knowledge from official docs, DevForum, roadmap, Help Center) with the topical scope enumerated and the three actions named. An agent knows this is a curated, sourced knowledge base rather than live game data. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like `roblox` or `search`, which is the only real gap.

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 action list (search / fact / changes) implies when each mode applies, and 'what changed since a day' is a clear use case. But it never says when to prefer this over the sibling `roblox` or `search` tools, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the authentication prerequisite and the shape of the returned content (live player comparison, update impact, alerts), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the prerequisite. The parenthetical 'the ones My Games shows them' is mildly redundant but clarifies scope cheaply; overall the text is dense but earns its length.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return content, and it does so at a reasonable level (player comparison, update movement, alerts). The auth prerequisite is also covered. Only the exact shape/limits of the response remain unstated, a minor gap for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are present.

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 states a specific resource (the signed-in person's own games) and enumerates what it surfaces: live-vs-usual player counts, the latest update with post-update player movement, and today's alerts. This distinguishes it functionally from siblings like 'game' or 'top', though it never names an alternative explicitly, so the routing signal is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by scope ('your own games' as opposed to some other query) and the prerequisite is stated ('Needs a free RoTerminal account: roterminal login'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as 'game' for a single title, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: chronological ordering, Roblox UTC day boundaries, the returned dataset shape, and the caveat that Robux/payers are only reported for non-guest traffic. It does not contradict any annotation. It could still say more about limits on history depth or missing days.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action comes first, then a compact metric glossary, then the return shape. The glossary is long but each entry earns its place because the enum is otherwise opaque. Minor verbosity in the run-on parenthetical structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does describe the return shape (day plus value, rates as fractions) and data-availability caveats. Missing pieces are minor: what a 'connected game' requires, error behavior for a bad game identifier, and whether gaps/zero days appear.

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 67%, and the description compensates well by defining all eleven metric enum values (dau, playu as playtime per daily user, d1/d7/d30 retention, payers as share who pay, revenue in Robux/day, etc.), which the schema's bare enum does not explain. It also explains that the returned day is formatted like 20261021 and rates are fractions. The 'game' parameter (name or universe id) and 'days' range are only covered in the schema.

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 a specific verb-and-resource: fetch one analytics metric for a connected game, returned day by day. The metric glossary makes the scope unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from nearby siblings like my_game_numbers or series, so an agent must infer which one gives the time series.

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?

Usage is implied by 'day by day (oldest first)' and by 'one of a connected game's own numbers', which suggests this is the per-day series tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (my_game_numbers, series, days, trends).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit by adding an authorization scoping rule (only games my_games reports as theirs) that the annotations cannot express. It also discloses a conditional data gap — pay-share and Robux metrics are omitted for guest-only games — which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 scope statement is front-loaded, but the body is a single run-on sentence with a long comma-spliced metric inventory and nested parentheticals, which makes it hard to scan. It is information-dense but not well structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so thoroughly — metric names, averaging windows, benchmark comparisons, and conditional fields. It omits any note on response shape or size, which is the only material gap for a read-only fetch tool.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a name or universe id obtainable from my_games. The description repeats that fact rather than adding new constraint or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource framing ("One of the person's connected games, from Roblox's own analytics") and enumerates the metric families returned, so an agent knows this is per-game analytics rather than a list. It doesn't distinguish itself from the obvious siblings my_game_days and my_game_sources, which likely return overlapping slices of the same data.

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 precondition "Private: only games my_games says are theirs to read" and the pointer to my_games for identifiers imply the call flow, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus my_game_days, my_game_sources, compare, or charts. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only games with Roblox analytics connected expose private numbers, and it flags per-game whether Robux are readable — permission-scoping facts the annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing result size or behavior when the user has no games.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with scope before the sibling routing, and no filler. The first sentence is dense with nested parentheticals ('claimed here, or on their Roblox account or its groups'), which slows parsing slightly, but every clause carries scope information that matters.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: universe id, name, current players, role, analytics-connected flag, and Robux readability are all listed. Combined with the explicit entry-point guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no parameter talk and instead spends its words on scope, which is the right allocation for a no-arg tool.

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 names a specific resource (the signed-in person's games) and enumerates exactly which games qualify — owned/claimed, seat-held, or studio-team-accessible — plus the per-game fields returned. This is far more specific than the bare name 'my_games' and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like game, search, or find without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says 'Start here before my_game_numbers, my_game_days or my_game_sources,' naming three sibling tools and the ordering relationship among them. That is an explicit when-to-use-this-first directive plus the alternatives it precedes.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are sorted biggest-first and default to 'the last days,' but says nothing about output shape beyond 'comes back as datasets too,' pagination, or limits — modest added value.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but it is delivered as one long run-on sentence with nested parentheticals, and the trailing 'comes back as datasets too' clause is vague filler. It is understandable but not tightly structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape, but only offers 'datasets' and 'biggest first.' For a three-parameter analytical tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response structure.

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 100%, so the parameter meanings are already fully documented. The description restates the `by` options and the recent-days window but adds no format, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource — a connected game's player acquisition sources, with a breakdown alternative by country/device/age/new — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like my_game_days or my_game_numbers, which is what keeps this from a 5.

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?

It explains the two modes (default source breakdown vs. `by:` segmentation), which implies usage, but never states when to reach for this tool rather than my_game_days, my_game_numbers, or my_games. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds grading cadence and categories, but does not clarify permissions beyond Studio scope, pagination, or return-format details, and the wording is cryptic.

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 only two sentences and places the subject early, but the prose is convoluted, especially 'on its own numbers against before,' and uses ambiguous pronouns. It is concise in length but not well structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must explain return values; it sketches the grading categories, timing, and rationale lines but leaves the exact response shape and how `days` and `game` affect results implicit. It is minimally adequate for a read-only tool with simple optional parameters.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for `days` or `game`, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (recent Studio team updates/games) and the output concept (grades at one day, three days, and one week with categories and rationale), but it never states a clear verb such as returns or lists. The pronoun 'Their' is ambiguous and the phrasing is vague, so the purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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 only usage constraint is 'Only a Studio team’s games are graded,' which acts as a scope exclusion, but the description does not explain when to choose this over siblings such as updates, my_game_numbers, or trends. It also names no alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real behavior: long lists come back truncated with counts, rows are returned whole as datasets, and history depth varies by plan (7 days on Free/Plus vs. all days on Pro/Studio). The quota note that "A game's page counts toward the day's games' history" is a genuinely useful consumption warning that nothing in the structured fields conveys.

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 key differentiator is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a sprawling comma-separated enumeration of page types that is hard to scan and largely redundant with the catalogue mechanism the tool itself provides. The retention/quota sentences earn their place; the page list does not.

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 single-optional-parameter generic pass-through with no output schema, the description covers the two calling modes, the truncation behavior, and plan-dependent history depth — enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned data, though "as the site serves it" and "rows whole as datasets" partly compensate.

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 100% and the single `path` parameter is already documented with concrete examples in the schema, so the description adds little. It restates the catalogue-when-omitted behavior that the schema description also states, without adding format rules beyond what is already given.

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 opening clause states the resource precisely ("One of RoTerminal's pages' data, as the site serves it") and explicitly positions it as the catch-all for "anything the other tools don't cover," which differentiates it from the many specific siblings. The long enumeration of page types reinforces scope but reads as a data dump rather than a crisp purpose statement.

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 fallback rule ("for anything the other tools don't cover") and the "Without path: the catalogue" clause together give a clear decision rule: omit path to discover, supply path to fetch. It does not address specific siblings like page_cards, game, or series, so an agent still has to infer when those win over this generic tool.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing an access-control rule: a game's private cards (Robux, players returning, where players come from) are visible to the owner alone. It also implies the return shape differs by mode, though it doesn't mention size/rate limits.

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 opening sentence front-loads the purpose well, but the sentence enumerating fifteen game cards (Players, Players returning, Similar games, Key stats...) is a long, dense list that only covers game pages, and the schema already provides example keys. Useful content, but padding that slows an agent scanning for the core instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it explains the abbreviated card format (key, title, first rows) versus the full dataset with a card key, plus the privacy caveat. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches both parameters: it defines what 'card' omission versus presence returns, and it lists concrete card keys. It also restates the accepted page identifier forms (path, link, name, universe id) in prose, reinforcing the schema's guidance.

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 a specific resource and scope: 'The cards a RoTerminal page shows, as data'. It enumerates which page kinds are supported (game, studio, developer, member, genre, word, charts) and which cards a game page carries, which lets an agent recognize the tool's domain. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like game, studio, or charts, so it falls short of 5.

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 clear branching guidance: 'Without card: every card in short... With card (a key from that list): that card whole, as a dataset.' That tells the agent exactly how to choose between the two calling modes. It still offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings such as game or charts, nor any exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond them, especially that contextual ties affect matching and that `ties` explains how, plus the disambiguation behavior represented by `ask`.

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 front-loaded with the entity definition and includes a dense but useful enumeration of included data, followed by short matching and disambiguation rules. It is somewhat run-on in the first sentence, but most content earns its place for a broad person-profile lookup.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what data categories the tool returns and how ambiguous matches are handled. It does not specify the exact response shape, but that is a minor gap given the scope described.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the optional `context` parameter by explaining that supplying a game or studio makes people tied to it win and that `ties` reports the connection.

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 resource as a developer or RoTerminal member and enumerates the profile, Roblox, studio, group, game, award, post, and job data it covers. It also distinguishes this from general player lookups with 'Never for someone who only plays games,' though it does not use an explicit verb or name sibling alternatives.

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?

It gives concrete usage guidance: pass the named game or studio as context, expect an `ask` response when two people fit, and avoid the tool for someone who only plays games. It lacks explicit named alternatives such as `find` or `search`, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: which platforms are excluded for licensing reasons, that each hit carries source/time/link, the requirement to credit GDELT, and a prompt-injection warning ('data, never instructions'). It doesn't cover rate limits or pagination, so it falls short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes something (included sources, exclusions, hit fields, attribution, game-only mode, data-vs-instructions warning). There is some redundancy between 'from the sources whose own terms allow passing it on' and the subsequent explicit exclusion list, and the phrasing is dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what each hit contains (source, time, link) and how results are scoped. Combined with annotations covering the read-only, idempotent nature, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only minor operational details like pagination or rate limits are absent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents q, game, limit, order, since, and until thoroughly. The description adds only the combination semantics ('with a game and no words: everything recorded about it'), and otherwise defers to the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search what was written about Roblox and its games') and sharply defines scope by naming the included source (GDELT news articles) and the excluded platforms (X, Reddit, YouTube, TikTok, etc.). This scope statement effectively separates it from a general search tool, though it never names a sibling like search or find explicitly.

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 one concrete usage pattern ('With a game and no words: everything recorded about it') and an attribution obligation, which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as search or find, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the source-scope description.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add value — and it does, by defining what 'rising' means (growth against a day or week ago) and enumerating the returned fields since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core concept and compact in sentence count, but the single run-on sentence lists many return fields in a way that is slightly unwieldy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and defines the comparison baseline, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It is nearly complete, missing only an explicit relationship to sibling ranking tools.

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 100%, so all three parameters (genre, limit, range) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the default. The description restates range semantics and the single-genre constraint but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource and scope: Roblox games gaining players fastest, with the two comparison windows named. This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like 'top' or 'trends', which imply absolute ranking rather than growth delta, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the growth framing and the optional genre filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives (e.g., 'top' vs 'trends' vs 'charts') are named for selecting between them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the real-time nature ('right now') and the exact temporal comparisons (day ago, week ago), which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary metric (current players online) and then adds the comparison periods. It is slightly terse and lacks an explicit verb, but no words are wasted.

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, parameterless stat tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data is returned. It could be more precise about the format of the 'change' (absolute vs. percentage), but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score per the rules is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter meanings since none exist.

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 specifies the resource (players online across all of Roblox) and the metrics returned (current count and changes over 1 day and 1 week). It does not use a clear verb or differentiate from sibling tools like trends or top, but the data scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trends, top, or compare. The description only states what data is returned, 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.

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context: delete is paired with restore, there is a 'run (once now)' escape hatch, all times are New York's, and an unopened account yields not_available. However it never says whether delete is permanent or what restore requires, so the destructive story is only partly filled in.

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?

Front-loads the core concept and the signal phrases before the dense 'Actions:' clause, so an agent can triage quickly. It is heavy with parenthetical clauses and run-on sentences, costing some readability, though almost no sentence is pure filler.

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 13-parameter, eight-action mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: action-to-parameter mapping, timezone, defaults for scheduling, and the not_available error case. It omits what list returns and whether delete is irreversible, which are the remaining gaps.

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 92%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description earns more by mapping parameters to actions (create needs name, question and every or trigger_sql; update takes id plus only what changes) and by stressing that question is asked whole on each run with the games and comparison named. Trigger parameters (cooldown_hours, max_fires_per_day, check_every_minutes) are left to the schema.

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 a concrete verb and resource ('Set up a routine: a question RoBot answers again by itself, on a schedule or trigger') and enumerates the eight operations, so an agent can distinguish this scheduling tool from the read-only sibling query tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('every morning', 'each Monday', 'keep me posted', 'tell me when', 'alert me if') that map intent to this tool, and notes runs consume the person's RoBot usage. It never states the inverse case (use the plain query siblings for one-off questions), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful scoping constraint (the universe is limited to the top 600 games by play count), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or handling of the default limit.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, and every clause maps to an actual filter parameter, so there is little wasted text. It is slightly run-on, which slightly hurts readability.

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 10-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and good annotation coverage, the description covers the main filter concepts but leaves three parameters documented nowhere and gives no sibling differentiation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 70%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely echoes several filters (genre, theme, players, 24h/7d change, age, likes), but the sort enum and the max_playing/min_playing bounds have no description in either the schema or the prose, so it only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb (screen) and resource (the 600 most played Roblox games) and enumerates the filter dimensions, so the purpose is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from heavily overlapping siblings like top, rising, trends, and search, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Sibling tools top, rising, trends, and genres cover very similar ground, so the agent has to guess which one fits a given query.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding behavior the annotations don't: a hard cap of 8 matches and ranking by most-played first. It still says nothing about auth requirements or empty/miss behavior.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the result contract. No filler and nothing redundant with the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it well: result count cap, fields returned, and sort order. For a one-parameter read-only search, an agent has everything needed to call it and 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' as the name or part of it. The description reinforces the name-matching semantics but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Find Roblox games by name") and even previews the result shape (up to 8 matches with universe id, developer, genre, players). This cleanly separates it from siblings like 'game' or 'top', though it never names an alternative explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase "by name" implies the usage context (name-based lookup rather than rankings or per-game detail), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling tool. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds real behavior the annotations cannot: resolution degrades by span (half-hour to 2 days, hourly to 14 days, daily beyond), and retention is tier-gated (Free/Plus 7 days, Pro/Studio since Sep 27 2026). It also discloses the returned dataset shape. Missing only things like row limits or rate behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and line types, then resolution and retention — a sensible order for a 7-parameter tool. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the closing line 'Each game counts toward the day's games' history' is opaque and arguably wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return dataset (a t or d time column plus one column per line) and by documenting resolution tiers, retention limits, line cap, and tier entitlements. An agent has enough to call it and interpret results without further context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the four list parameters correspond to line types and that the lookback span drives output resolution, plus the 'd column of days' format. This goes past restating field text, though it never ties semantics to specific parameter names.

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 states a concrete resource — player counts over time as a multi-line series — and enumerates the four line types (games, all of Roblox, genre's games, trend word's games), so an agent can tell what it returns. It gestures at a sibling relationship ('the way RoTerminal's charts read them') but never explicitly positions itself against charts, compare, or days.

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?

Usage is implied through constraints (up to 8 lines, span-dependent resolution, tier-based lookback) rather than stated as when-to-use versus alternatives. There is no sentence telling the agent to choose this over `compare` for multi-game history or `days` for single-day detail, so routing must be inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are 'as RoBot reads it,' implying a cached/derived snapshot, and enumerates what data is surfaced, but says nothing about what happens with conflicting or zero parameters, or about error behavior. Adequate but thin against the reduced bar set by annotations.

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?

Two long run-on sentences heavy with comma-separated field lists, and the front-loaded sentence describes the developer mode rather than the tool's own studio behavior. The structure buries the actual distinguishing information behind 'With studio instead.'

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?

Three optional parameters with no output schema and no required inputs make this inherently ambiguous, and the description does enumerate the data returned for both modes, which helps. However, it omits the mode-selection rules and mutual exclusivity that an agent needs to invoke a zero-required-parameter tool correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter's format is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal meaning by implying game/name select the developer view while studio selects the page view, but it never states this mode-selection logic explicitly, leaving the key semantic relationship to inference.

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 opening sentence describes a developer lookup by game or name, then switches to 'With studio instead' describing a studio page, so the agent cannot tell which behavior the tool itself performs without parsing parameters. The verb is absent entirely; the description is a list of returnable fields rather than a statement of purpose, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like person, game, or find.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus person, find, or game — the closest thing is the schema note 'when no game is known' for name. 'With studio instead' implies a mode switch but never says under what conditions an agent should choose studio mode over developer mode, or that parameters are mutually alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only mild context ('now' = current snapshot, 30-day window for new), and says nothing about pagination, ordering stability, or result size beyond what the schema's limit implies.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then two compact clauses for the enum values and a short optional-filter note. No filler, though the sentence fragments read more like notes than structured guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, but 'ranked list of Roblox games' conveys the return shape and ordering well enough to call the tool. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all parameters, nothing critical is missing aside from sibling disambiguation.

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 100%, so all three parameters (list, genre, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the list enum meanings and the single-genre restriction but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: a ranked list of Roblox games, with the two ranking modes (most_played, new) explained. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like rising, trends, or charts, which likely return different rankings, so an agent cannot fully route on purpose alone.

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 clarifies when to pick each list value ('most players right now' vs 'came out in the last 30 days'), which is real selection guidance for the enum. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as rising, trends, or charts, and gives no exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: removed cards come back 'for a day,' cards are 'read again whenever it’s opened,' and an account without RoBot open gets 'not_available.' It does not fully cover permissions, rate limits, or all mutation side effects, but it does disclose key state and lifecycle behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose, but it is delivered as one very dense run-on paragraph enumerating every action and edge case. The content is mostly necessary for this multi-action tool, yet the lack of bullets or action-by-action structure makes it harder to scan than it should be.

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 complex multi-action tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers all available actions, key parameter pairings, template fill options, restore behavior, and the RoBot availability prerequisite. It remains incomplete on return shapes for many actions and broader error behavior, but it gives an agent enough to select and invoke actions correctly in most cases.

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 high at 90%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds value by mapping actions to parameters, e.g. show accepts ids or folder with 'up to 6,' refresh with no ids means 'every card,' make uses fill for template-specific values, and rename folders use asked only when the person requested the new name.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read and change the person’s Terminal,' and explains that the Terminal is a grid of live cards kept in folders. This is clear enough to distinguish it from a generic page or chart tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like page_cards or charts for contrast.

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 action-level usage detail, such as 'list (every folder and card...)' and 'show (ids... or folder),' which implies when each action is appropriate. However, it does not state when to use track instead of adjacent tools such as page_cards, charts, or compare, and it offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot: the two-window (30d vs prior 30d) comparison, that each word carries its biggest game, and that supplying a word narrows output to a single term.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then how the optional parameter changes behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; the sentence structure is somewhat run-on but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: words, comparative counts across two windows, and a representative game per word. Combined with read-only annotations and complete schema coverage, an agent has enough to call and interpret it; only the exact response shape and default limit behavior are unstated.

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 100%, so `word` and `limit` are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining the semantic effect of `word` (single-word lookup rather than the top list) and giving example values, which clarifies intent rather than just syntax. `limit` is left entirely to the schema.

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 states precisely what is returned: words appearing in new game names, counted over the last 30 days versus the prior 30, plus the biggest game per word. That is a specific resource and scope an agent can act on. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools (rising, top, search) it might be confused with, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

It gives a concrete decision rule: with a word, you get that word only, and the stated purpose is 'check whether an idea has been done and how it's doing.' That is a real when-to-use scenario with examples (horror, brainrot). No alternatives or exclusions are named, so routing versus `rising` or `top` is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, the tracking start date (Sep 27 2026), and plan-based result truncation, which is effectively a limit/quota disclosure the agent needs to interpret partial results.

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?

Dense but single-purpose: scope and ordering come first, the returned fields follow, and the tier constraint closes it out. The one-sentence run-on listing of fields is slightly hard to parse but every clause carries information, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, enumerating when, title, version count, post-update player comparison versus the prior week, the change, and the typical change. It also discloses plan-based truncation. Only error behavior and the exact meaning of the comparison window are left implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's only additions are reinforcing the tier-dependent limit ('Free and Plus see the last 10') and describing the game argument's accepted forms, both of which the schema already states.

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 gives a specific resource and scope: 'Every update of one Roblox game since tracking began (Sep 27 2026), newest first'. That is far more than a restatement of the name, and an agent can tell this apart from list-style siblings like charts or trends. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for one game's update history, and the tier note ('Free and Plus see the last 10; Pro and Studio see every one') tells the agent the result window varies by plan. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, no mention of alternatives such as trends or days, and no prerequisites for the required game parameter.

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