Studio status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and safe, and the description adds behavioral limits and caveats: selection is capped at 50 entries, selected text at 400 characters, no focused-tab API exists, and it returns JSON. It also positions the call as the cheapest diagnostic for disconnection, which helps the agent interpret failures.

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 dense paragraphs front-load the tool's purpose in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence adds decision-relevant detail: sequencing, deictic interpretation, and truncation limits. No filler is present; the length is justified by the absence of an output 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?

The description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how to interpret openScripts without a focused-tab API, and the truncation behavior that affects agents needing more data. Combined with the read-only annotations and schema-documented studioId, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

The single optional studioId parameter is fully documented in the schema itself ('Omit to use the active one'), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the 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 opens with 'One-call snapshot of the connected Roblox Studio' and enumerates the exact fields returned: place name/id, edit/run/play mode, selection, open scripts, and data model size. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_studios and find by scoping it to the connected Studio session.

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 instructs the agent to call this tool FIRST in any Studio session, on NO_STUDIO/TIMEOUT, and before/after playtest. It also gives a concrete alternative rule: for deictic requests, use openScripts data instead of searching the place or asking the user, and prefer tabs with a selection. This is the strongest possible usage guidance.

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