Search the Roblox DevForum

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

The safety profile is already covered by annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are re-ranked to favour solved and recent threads, which an agent would not expect given the order=relevance schema default, and it gives the literal-error-string input strategy. No contradiction with annotations.

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: purpose, when-to-use with a concrete example, and a behavioral note plus follow-up. The most decision-relevant information (scope and usage) is front-loaded before the re-ranking detail.

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 read-only search tool with 9 params, 78% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers query formulation, result prioritization behaviour, and the natural next step. It does not describe the response shape, but it does hint at it via 'topic_id', and the remaining undocumented params (limit, order) are self-explanatory by name and enum.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds real param-level value beyond the schema by instructing the agent to paste literal error strings (with a concrete example) or symptom descriptions into the query, which is actionable formulation guidance the schema does not provide.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across the Roblox Developer Forum'), and the second sentence anchors its scope to community context for bugs/errors/engine behaviour. This implicitly differentiates it from siblings like search_bugs and search_creator_docs, which serve official bug-tracker and documentation lookups respectively.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this first when a Roblox bug, error message, or engine behaviour needs community context') and a concrete follow-up chain ('Follow up with get_thread on the topic_id you want to read'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives with explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'community context' discriminator is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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