roblox_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return content and what is excluded, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the universe_id is invalid. For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive; it could add a note about typical failure modes.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get a Roblox experience'), followed by concrete details of what is returned and what is not. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and readable.

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-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the return contents (including aggregate votes and public icon) and explicitly lists exclusions. It does not enumerate every possible field or error case, but for a simple catalog fetch, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to use it and what to expect. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clarity of the returned data.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter universe_id with the description 'Positive Roblox universe id', which is clear and sufficient. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond referring to 'a Roblox experience', which aligns with the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 'Get' and the resource 'a Roblox experience', and specifies the exact data returned: public catalog detail, aggregate votes, and public icon. It also explicitly excludes player, account, purchase, and server data, distinguishing it from related tools like roblox_rankings or roblox_search. This is specific and non-tautological.

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 clear context on what the tool does and explicitly states what it does not return (player, account, purchase, or server data), which helps an agent know when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., roblox_search for searching or roblox_rankings for rankings) to guide selection when those are more appropriate. The exclusions are useful but not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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