roblox_badges

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 discloses that the tool returns one cursor-paginated page, that the cursor must be passed back unchanged, and that no user-awarded badge data is returned. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only list endpoint the key behaviors are covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, pagination behavior, and the exclusion of user-awarded data. The most important scoping information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what is returned, pagination mechanics, and the exclusion of user-awarded data. It does not describe the shape of the badge metadata or error cases, but those are not necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The pagination instruction is the most valuable completeness element.

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 both parameters. The description adds the pagination contract ('Pass next_cursor back unchanged as cursor'), which clarifies how the cursor parameter should be used. It does not add detail about universe_id beyond what the schema says, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Roblox experience badges'), and the scope ('public badge metadata for a Roblox experience'). It also explicitly excludes user-awarded badge data, which distinguishes it from any potential sibling that might return user-specific badge info. The name 'roblox_badges' is generic, but the description disambiguates it well.

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 clearly states what the tool returns and the pagination contract ('Pass next_cursor back unchanged as cursor'), which is essential usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the exclusion of user-awarded data implies when it is not appropriate. Given the sibling list contains roblox_game, roblox_rankings, and roblox_search, the description's focus on badges is enough to route an agent correctly.

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