fire_remote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens with invalid arguments. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about behavioral implications.

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 short sentence, but it under-specifies important details. It is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness. The description does not earn its place; it could be expanded to provide value without becoming verbose.

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, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition is very incomplete. It does not explain how the 'ref' parameter is used (e.g., instance reference), the acceptable argument types (despite a detailed schema), or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical information to use the 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters. The phrase 'with the given arguments' adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'ref' parameter (integer) and 'args' array structure are not described, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'fire' and the resource 'RemoteEvent', and mentions 'FireServer' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'invoke_remote' (likely for RemoteFunctions) and remote_spy_* (spying). The purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for use. The presence of sibling tools like 'invoke_remote' suggests a need for differentiation, but the description fails to provide it.

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