get_studio_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that the tool is a read-style operation by saying 'Retrieves' and enumerating the state categories returned. However, it does not explain error behavior, whether an active Studio session must exist, or how the optional studio_id interacts with the 'active' qualifier.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the domain, the action, and the key data categories immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately lists the main return categories but leaves important contextual gaps. It does not clarify the relationship between 'active Studio session' and the optional studio_id parameter, nor does it specify what happens when no Studio is active. These gaps make the description minimally adequate rather than 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 single parameter studio_id has 100% schema description coverage ('Target Studio instance ID'), so the schema already documents its meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how omitting the parameter behaves or whether it overrides the active session. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 operation ('Retrieves') and the resource ('active Studio session information, current place ID, edit/play simulation status, and open documents'). It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like studio_info or playtest_get_state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_roblox_studios, set_active_studio, or studio_info. There are no exclusions or conditions stated, so an agent must infer the appropriate usage context from the tool name and schema alone.

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