Roblox Bridge Agent

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the status/snapshot cluster (rba_health_check, rba_unified_status, rba_development_snapshot, rba_context_snapshot, rba_connection_info, rba_ws_status) which all provide similar diagnostic information. Execution tools (rba_send_lua, rba_eval_lua, rba_execute_file, rba_eval_lua_file) also blur boundaries between send, eval, and execute.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tools use a consistent rba_ prefix and snake_case, but verb usage is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (rba_start_live_session, rba_list_files), while others are noun-only (rba_events, rba_clients) or noun_noun (rba_connection_info, rba_health_check). This mix reduces predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 79 tools, the set is far too large for most workflows. While the domain is complex, many functions could be consolidated (e.g., multiple snapshot/status tools into one, or combined file operations). This exceeds the typical well-scoped range and adds cognitive overhead.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides extensive coverage of the Roblox bridge development lifecycle: connection management, Lua execution, file operations, autoexec configuration, script capsules, watchers, teleportation, screenshots, and debugging. There are no obvious dead ends, and generic eval_lua covers arbitrary Roblox interactions.
Average 3.4/5 across 79 of 79 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 2, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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, but it merely states 'List files' without revealing recursion behavior, handling of directories, maxEntries limits, or output format. The presence of recursive and maxEntries parameters in the schema is not reflected in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. While every word earns its place, the single sentence lacks structural elements like parameter examples or behavioral notes, making it brief but not sufficiently helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and any parameter descriptions, this simple one-liner is inadequate. The tool has 3 parameters and potential nuances like recursion and entry limits, but the description does not mention them or the expected output, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the input schema parameters (path, recursive, maxEntries). Schema description coverage is 0%, and there is no mention of what these parameters control. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are not self-explanatory in terms of semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List files inside the RBA workspace' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files inside the RBA workspace'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools that perform different operations (e.g., rba_search_files, rba_read_file), though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like rba_search_files or rba_read_file. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and execution behavior itself. It only mentions the source file for the profile but does not explain what running a profile does—whether it executes Lua code, targets clients, has side effects, or returns a result. This is insufficient for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is good for structure. However, it is under-specified—conciseness here comes at the expense of necessary detail, so it does not fully earn its place as a standalone description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that executes a script profile, the description is too thin. It does not explain the effect of the 'target' parameter, mention what happens after execution, or provide any context about expected outcomes or errors. With two parameters and no output schema, the description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implicitly clarifies that 'name' selects the script profile, but it completely omits any explanation of 'target' (all/first/integer), which is a significant gap given the parameter is optional but potentially important for execution scope.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('named script profile') with a source location ('workspace profile JSON file'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named sibling tools like rba_run_preset or rba_run_script_capsule, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is 'run a profile,' but there is no context about selecting this over other execution tools such as rba_run_preset or rba_send_lua.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is captured but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, requires special permissions, or how the optional screenshots are handled (especially given the two screenshot-related parameters, includeImage and includeScreenshot).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and efficiently lists the captured elements. It wastes no words and is highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no parameter details, return format, or usage caveats. It is a high-level summary but insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, especially with ambiguous screenshot parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters (target, timeoutMs, eventLimit, focusWindow, includeImage, includeScreenshot). It only lists output categories, leaving the agent without insight into how to configure the call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool captures status, clients, recent events, runtime summary, and optional Roblox screenshot, which is a specific set of resources. The phrase 'in one call' hints at a consolidated snapshot, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like rba_unified_status or rba_development_snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for getting a broad overview, but it does not mention prerequisites, expected scenarios, or situations where a different sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool installs helpers and returns a snapshot, but does not mention side effects, whether it modifies client state, reversibility, permission needs, or what the snapshot contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. It does not explain prerequisites like requiring connected clients, the nature of debug helpers, or the structure of the snapshot. The tool's side effects and return value are unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (target, timeoutMs) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation of their meaning or valid values (e.g., 'all', 'first', index, timeout behavior). The description does not compensate for the schema coverage gap at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action: install debug helpers and return a runtime snapshot. It specifies a verb and resource, but 'debug helpers' is vague and it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like rba_probe_runtime or rba_development_snapshot, so it misses the highest bar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., connected clients), exclusions, or scenarios. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Close,' which is a destructive action. It does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what side effects it has on the client list, or whether confirmation is required. The description fails to carry the burden of behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple operation. However, it borders on under-specification, though for this tool, brevity does contribute to clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent. It does not indicate the return value, whether the disconnection is confirmed, or how to identify a specific client. The tool is simple, but the missing context makes it inadequate for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the parameter clientId, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no guidance on how to obtain a valid client ID or that it refers to the ID from rba_clients, leaving the parameter meaning entirely inferred.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Close') and the specific resource ('one connected RBA websocket client'), which distinguishes it from server-level operations like rba_ws_stop. It is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_ws_stop or rba_disconnect_client. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over sibling tools or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states it waits for return values/errors but does not disclose side effects of running arbitrary Lua, required client connections, timeout behavior, or whether execution is synchronous. This is a significant gap for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise, but its brevity omits critical context that would be expected for a tool with multiple parameters and no additional annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, how target and timeoutMs behave, or the implications of running code in connected clients. The agent lacks enough context to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 4 parameters, and the description only mentions 'workspace Lua file' which maps to the path parameter. It provides no insight into label, target, or timeoutMs, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from parameter names and schema constraints alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a workspace Lua file and waits for structured return values or errors from connected clients. The verb 'run' and resource 'workspace Lua file' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar siblings like rba_eval_lua or rba_execute_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to run a Lua file and get structured results, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_send_lua_file or rba_execute_file. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the components being diagnosed and mentions 'optional eval/ping health,' but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or what happens during a health check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Diagnose' and efficiently lists the full scope. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears moderately complex, checking multiple components, but the description omits any information about return values, error behavior, or parameter effects. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior or results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema includes two parameters (timeoutMs and includePing) with 0% coverage in the description. The phrase 'optional eval/ping health' vaguely hints at includePing but fails to explain either parameter or its effect, offering minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does with the verb 'Diagnose' and enumerates specific components (RBA bridge, Instance Manager endpoint, connected clients, autoexec targets, recent errors, and optional eval/ping health). It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering multiple areas, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It lacks any mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states that the tool lists sidecar backups, but does not reveal the output format, whether it is read-only, or how it behaves when targetPath is empty. This is a minimal description that adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'List'. It contains no wasted words and efficiently conveys the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is quite incomplete. It leaves critical questions unanswered, such as what the returned backup list looks like and what constitutes a 'sidecar backup' in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (targetPath) with no description (0% coverage), so the tool description must compensate. It hints that targetPath refers to the 'autoexec target', but does not specify the expected format, whether it is required, or what happens when left empty.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (List) and the resource (sidecar backups for an autoexec target), which distinguishes it from the more generic sibling rba_list_backups. It is specific and unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not elaborate on what a sidecar backup is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_list_backups or rba_restore_autoexec_backup. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the outcome ('restore print/warn') and provides no detail on side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for an operation that modifies runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The lack of essential context makes it a poor example of efficient communication; it omits parameter and behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and unexplained parameters, the description fails to give a complete picture. The agent cannot know what the tool will do to the target, what `timeoutMs` controls, or what the return value signifies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists two parameters (`target`, `timeoutMs`) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention them at all. The agent is left to infer their meaning from names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('restore print/warn') and ties it to the sibling tool 'rba_install_console_mirror', distinguishing it as an undo operation. However, it could be more explicit about what the console mirror does, making the purpose slightly less immediate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'after rba_install_console_mirror' provides clear temporal context for when this tool should be used. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a paired install/uninstall operation, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but only says 'run multiple operations'. It doesn't mention mutation, overwrite behavior, backup defaults, failure atomicity, or ordering—critical for a batch file mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, easy to scan and free of fluff. It slightly under-specifies but earns high marks for not wasting words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (nested array of operations with multiple fields, limits, defaults) and has no output schema or annotations. The description leaves out behavioral details like max 50 operations, per-operation fields, and potential side effects, making it insufficient for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic detail about the only parameter, 'operations'. The nested schema defines action enums and fields, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining that operations include write/append/mkdir or their requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it runs multiple workspace file operations in one call, which clearly distinguishes it from single-operation siblings like rba_write_file and rba_append_file. However, it doesn't name the supported operations, relying on the schema to convey specifics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in one call' implies batching many operations together, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over individual file tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only restates parameter names (syntax checks, delay, stop-on-error). It does not explain what happens on execution, how mode/target affect behavior, what results are returned, or the potential side effects of running code.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex (7 params, no output schema) and has meaningful behavioral nuance (mode, target, timeout, side effects). The description covers only the barest outline and lacks critical details needed for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 7 parameters. It only hints at files, syntaxCheck, delayMs, and stopOnError, leaving mode, target, and timeoutMs unexplained. This is insufficient for such a high parameter count.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes multiple workspace Lua files in sequence, with syntax checks, delay, and stop-on-error control. This distinguishes it from single-file execution tools like rba_execute_file or rba_send_lua_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies batch execution via 'multiple files' but gives no explicit use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the return value and source, but does not explain how 'local' is determined, how selection via target works, or any edge cases (e.g., no connected clients).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how target values affect the result, what the output structure looks like, or timeout behavior, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the target or timeoutMs parameters at all. The schema provides constraints but no semantic meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns the local character position and CFrame from connected development clients. The verb 'Return' and specific resource are unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling teleport tools that set positions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference related tools like teleport functions or client info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the basic action and target. It does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., no connected clients), target selection behavior, or any side effects beyond showing a notification.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the core purpose and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is under-specified. It fails to explain parameter meanings, targeting behavior, or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the five parameters (message, level, title, target, durationMs). It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, leaving the required 'message' parameter and others unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('in-game RBA notification') and scope ('connected Roblox clients'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_ping_clients or rba_set_client_status by describing the exact action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., connected clients), and no exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context for choosing it among many RBA tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states the action ('search text files') but does not disclose whether the search is read-only, case-insensitive, recursive, or what the output format is. No side effects, limits, or permissions are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It is not as extreme as a tautology, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, search behavior, or how path and extensions interact. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), so the description must compensate. It adds context for 'text files' which hints at the extensions parameter, but it does not explain the query parameter, path, or maxResults. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search text files inside the RBA workspace' clearly states a specific verb (search), resource (text files), and scope (RBA workspace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_list_files and rba_read_file, which list or read files rather than search them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. Users are left to infer that it's for finding text content, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds minimal context (file originates from workspace, targets connected clients) but does not explain side effects, default target behavior, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and object, achieving maximum conciseness. Being short is acceptable because any missing information is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, the complete absence of annotations and output schema, combined with 0% parameter coverage, makes this description inadequate for correct invocation. The agent is left unsure about target semantics, file path format, and expected behavior, creating significant gaps in a real usage scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain 'path' (beyond the obvious notion of a file location) and completely omits any mention of 'target' and its possible values ('all', 'first', integer). The description adds no meaning to the parameters, leaving them ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('send') with a clear resource ('Lua file from the RBA workspace') and recipient ('connected development clients'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_send_lua (which likely sends code snippets) and rba_execute_file (which executes files) by focusing on transmission to clients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as rba_send_lua or rba_execute_file. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., clients must be connected) or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior fully. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., active connection), or what happens with the 'target' parameter. The vague plural 'connected Roblox clients' conflicts with the schema's target options (all, first, or specific ID), leaving behavior unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Update'. It contains no filler and is immediately actionable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters (one required) and no output schema. The description is minimal and does not explain the meaning of 'level' or 'target', nor the behavior of the status panel. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional documentation, especially given the schema's target options and enum.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (level, target, message). It provides no added meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description's mention of 'status panel' vaguely hints at the message content but does not clarify purpose or usage of any parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update the in-game RBA status panel on connected Roblox clients.' This identifies the specific action (update), the resource (in-game RBA status panel), and the scope (connected Roblox clients). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle notifications or code execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_notify_clients or rba_send_lua. The description only implies usage by its purpose, lacking explicit context, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core teleport action but does not disclose error behavior on invalid paths, timeout semantics, yaw handling, or whether a client must be selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified relative to the number of parameters, though conciseness itself is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain the target selector, offset coordinate semantics, timeout behavior, or return/result information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the path and a generic 'local offset', leaving target selection (all/first/integer), yawDegrees, and timeoutMs unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Teleport') and clearly identifies the resource: the local character to a Workspace BasePart or Model path. It also notes an optional local offset, distinguishing this from sibling tools that teleport to positions or places.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over rba_teleport_to_position or rba_teleport_to_place. The only implicit differentiator is the use of a path, but no explicit context or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states 'Create or replace' but omits critical behavior: the 'overwrite' parameter defaults to false, meaning replacement may not occur without explicit opt-in. It also does not mention the default creation of backups (backupExisting=true) or automatic directory creation (createDirectories=true). These behaviors affect the outcome and failure modes, making the description insufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'Create or replace a file inside the RBA workspace.' It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, contains no filler words, and every word adds meaning. This is an example of ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains the basic purpose but provides no information on return behavior, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., RBA workspace availability), or parameter interactions. The 'replace' behavior is contextually important because overwrite defaults to false. The description is a minimal one-liner that leaves significant gaps for safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters. Schema coverage is only 20% (one parameter has a description), so the burden falls on the description to clarify parameter usage. The five parameters (path, content, overwrite, backupExisting, createDirectories) have nuanced defaults and effects that are not explained. The agent must rely on parameter names and the sparse schema, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Create or replace a file' and names the target resource as 'a file inside the RBA workspace.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like rba_append_file (add to file), rba_read_file (read), and rba_backup_file (backup). The intent is unambiguous and identifies the unique operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention using rba_append_file for appending content or rba_backup_file for backing up, nor does it explain scenarios where this tool should not be used (e.g., when the file does not exist and overwrite is false). The description is silent on usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a 'Roblox-safe rate limit' which indicates built-in throttling, but it does not explain side effects, whether this modifies state, the reversibility (aside from the sibling uninstall tool), or what happens on repeated installs. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that installs functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly-worded sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and includes a key qualifier (rate limit) that hints at behavior. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices parameter and usage details, which are critical for a tool with three parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameters, return values, or operational side effects, and there is no mention of when or how to use it beyond the one-line purpose. This leaves significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (target, timeoutMs, maxPerSecond) or their meanings. The schema provides defaults and types but no semantic guidance, so the agent has no additional context to correctly set these values beyond raw schema constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Mirror') and resource ('client print/warn output'), and indicates a distinct action (feeding into RBA events). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like rba_uninstall_console_mirror, which is the inverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for capturing client console output into RBA events, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., event watchers, log viewers). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the wait is brief, implying a timeout, but doesn't state timeout behavior, return value, side effects, or what happens when no event arrives, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, clear and efficient, with no redundancy. It earns its place and is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the return format, timeout behavior, or error conditions, which is important for an event-waiting tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only mentions type and clientId as filters, not explaining their semantics in detail or timeoutMs explicitly. The description partially compensates but remains insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool waits for a websocket event with optional filtering by type and client id. It is distinct from sibling tools like rba_events (which lists events), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for waiting on events but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over rba_events or other websocket tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'visible' window, implying visibility is required, and says the result is returned as an MCP image. However, it does not disclose focus behavior, error conditions for hidden windows, output path handling, or image format details, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action, target, and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately simple tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains the core functionality and return type, but lacks context on optional behaviors like saving to a path or window focusing. The schema fills in parameter details, making this adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how parameters like focusWindow or outputPath affect the outcome. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Capture') and identifies the resource ('screenshot of a visible Windows process window') and output ('return it as an MCP image'). It is clear and distinct from the sibling rba_capture_roblox_screenshot, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like rba_capture_roblox_screenshot. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it reads events, but does not explain what 'recent' means (e.g., time window, order, pagination), whether events are consumed or retained, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse and acting as an efficient summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not mention return format, default behavior, or related sibling tools. It gives the agent enough to understand the basic function but lacks helpful context for effective selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema largely documents the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., meaning of 'type', 'since'/'until' formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('read') and identifies the resource ('recent websocket/client events'), making the core function clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like rba_clear_events (which clears events) and rba_wait_for_event (which waits for an event), but does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only mentions the two modes ('fire-and-forget' and 'structured results') but omits important behaviors like code execution side effects, permission requirements, client targeting implications, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema already encodes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence with no redundant text. It front-loads the primary action and efficiently conveys the two operation modes without wasting words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six parameters and no output schema, requiring a fairly detailed description for safe and effective use. The description fails to explain the 'target' selection semantics, 'timeoutMs' constraints, 'syntaxCheck' effect, or what 'structured results' actually include. The description is too terse for a tool of this complexity, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It does add clarity for 'mode' (send vs eval) and path (workspace file), but 'label', 'target', 'timeoutMs', and 'syntaxCheck' remain unexplained. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's function: 'Execute a workspace Lua file in Roblox', and distinguishes between two modes: 'fire-and-forget send' and 'eval with structured results'. This verb+resource+mode structure clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like rba_send_lua_file or rba_eval_lua_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as rba_send_lua_file, rba_eval_lua_file, or rba_execute_bundle. It does not state alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess which tool to invoke for a given scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Run'. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what output is produced, potential execution time, or side effects. The timeoutMs parameter hints at blocking behavior but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the core action and resource, with no superfluous words. The exclusions list at the end naturally leads to the necessary examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what a probe returns, what 'target' selects, or why timeoutMs matters, leaving critical gaps for an agent attempting to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only lists the probe enum values and leaves 'target' and 'timeoutMs' completely unexplained, providing no additional meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and resource ('built-in realtime probe'), and enumerates the specific probe types that match the schema enum, making its function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like snapshots or file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_development_snapshot or rba_context_snapshot. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or when another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (returning the local character's position) but does not disclose edge cases (e.g., no prior teleport), the meaning or effect of the 'target' parameter, or whether the operation is reversible. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence is meaningful and contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to be more complete. It fails to explain the 'target' parameter, error conditions, return behavior, or relationships to other teleport tools. Overall, it is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameters and expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. The 'target' parameter is particularly ambiguous because the description says 'most recent' teleport, while 'target' may allow selecting a different teleport or applying to all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('local character' position), and it distinguishes itself from sibling teleport tools by indicating an undo behavior. It is not tautological; it adds the context of 'position before the most recent RBA teleport'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'most recent RBA teleport' implies the tool is used after a teleport to revert it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Usage is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'run a built-in Lua preset' without warning that many presets have side effects (e.g., teleporting, saving state, installing runtimes), require connected clients, or may execute arbitrary Lua code on clients.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action and receives full credit for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description gives no context about return values, error behavior, side effects, or preconditions. The preset enum includes potentially dangerous actions (teleport_to_spawn, install_console_mirror), but the description provides no warning or usage context, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It clarifies that presets are 'built-in Lua' and clients are 'development', but it does not explain the 'target' parameter's allowed values (all/first/integer) or default behavior, nor does it enumerate any preset semantics beyond the schema enum.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource ('built-in Lua preset') and target ('connected development clients'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like rba_list_presets (which lists presets) and rba_run_script_profile (which runs script profiles, not presets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. It does not mention related tools like rba_list_presets for discovering available presets, nor does it explain when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Configure' but does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, whether it overwrites existing autorun settings, whether it persists across sessions, or how it affects currently connected clients. The schema defaults (e.g., enabled=false) hint at behavior but are not explained in the description. This leaves the agent unaware of side effects and prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action word and resource, and every word contributes to understanding. This is an example of efficient, focused writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level purpose. It lacks critical contextual information such as how parameters interact, whether autorun configuration applies to future or current connections, and what the tool returns. The description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It mentions 'profile/file execution' which loosely maps to the profile and files properties, but it does not explain modes (send/eval), the target selector, the enabled flag, or the timeoutMs behavior. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the agent has to guess at parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure optional profile/file execution that runs automatically when a Roblox client connects.' It identifies the verb (configure), the resource (profile/file execution), and the trigger condition (when a Roblox client connects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_get_autorun (which retrieves configuration) and immediate-execution tools like rba_execute_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention rba_get_autorun for reading the current configuration, nor does it exclude immediate-execution tools like rba_run_script_profile or rba_send_lua. Usage context must be inferred solely from the tool name and sibling list, which is poor guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and lifecycle behavior. It mentions 'optionally run them once immediately' but doesn't explain what happens during live editing (e.g., execution on save), session termination, or potential side effects like code execution or network activity. This is insufficient for a tool that can run Lua code.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function and an optional variant, achieving maximum conciseness without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only one line of context. It does not mention return values, session management, error behavior, or how to stop the session. This is inadequate for a complex live-session tool, especially compared to the rich schema that needs explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, leaving the description to explain parameters. It only implicitly covers 'files' and 'runOnce' ('optionally run them once immediately'). It fails to explain 'mode', 'target', 'timeoutMs', 'debounceMs', and 'syntaxCheck', which are critical for understanding behavior. The schema has enums and defaults, but the description does not compensate for the lack of semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Watch') and resource ('multiple workspace Lua files as one live-editing session'), clearly distinguishing from single-file watchers like rba_watch_file. It also mentions an optional immediate execution behavior, which differentiates it from pure watch tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer this over sibling tools like rba_watch_file or rba_eval_lua_file. The only context is implicit from the word 'multiple'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the destination and timestamped nature of the backup, but omits key details such as return value, file naming pattern, whether the original file is modified, and potential side effects. For a mutation-like tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and destination, scoring high for zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but the description lacks parameter semantics, return value, and behavioral nuances such as timestamp format or whether backups are kept. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves several practical questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only vaguely implies that 'path' refers to a workspace file, but does not clarify the 'reason' parameter, its purpose, or its default value. The description adds little beyond the raw schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a timestamped backup of a workspace file under .rba-backups.' It specifies a concrete action (create), the target resource (workspace file), and the destination directory, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like rba_list_backups or rba_restore_backup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It does not mention related operations like rba_list_backups, rba_restore_backup, or rba_write_file, nor does it explain prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies read-only, but it does not disclose what happens if the client is not connected or if clientId is invalid, nor what 'full details' actually includes. This lack of error and return behavior is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence of eight words with no wasted content. It clearly states the action, object, and scope, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify return content and error behavior. 'Full details' is vague, but the general purpose is still clear enough for an agent to consider using it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the clientId parameter. It only adds that the client must be connected, but does not explain where to obtain the clientId or its exact meaning beyond the schema's integer type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and a specific resource 'full details for one connected RBA websocket client', which clearly distinguishes it from list-like siblings such as rba_clients or connection-level rba_connection_info. It captures both the action and the scope of the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The phrase 'for one connected client' implies a distinction from list tools, but it doesn't mention rba_clients for listing or any prerequisities like obtaining a clientId.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. Although 'Return' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify state, or any caveats like whether the connection-state checks are live or cached. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. Every word adds value, listing exactly what will be returned. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and lists the key return fields. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON object vs plain text) or whether the values are current or could be stale, leaving some context incomplete for an agent relying solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly focuses on the output. With no parameters to document, the description adds no param semantics needed, and the baseline for zero-param tools is 4. It fully avoids inventing non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly lists the resource: active RBA websocket host, port, URL, candidate URLs, and published connection-state checks. It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it could more explicitly differentiate from rba_ws_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use this to debug connection issues' or 'instead of rba_ws_status'. The usage context is only implied by the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'show', which hints at a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, whether the bridge must be running, if it can block or hang, or details about the output. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 11-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description lists the main output categories (status, clients, events) but lacks detail on return format, ordering, or what 'recent' means. It also does not clarify how this differs from other status tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is the right call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed given the empty schema, and the absence of parameters is clear from the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show websocket bridge status, connected clients, and recent client events' clearly states a specific verb and resource, conveying it is a read-only informational tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like rba_unified_status, rba_clients, or rba_events, which likely overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_ws_start, rba_ws_stop, or rba_connection_info. It only implies use for status checks via the word 'status', but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the waiting behavior and that results are structured, but it does not mention that executing arbitrary Lua can have side effects or what happens when no clients are connected. This is a partial disclosure but lacking depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. It is not as egregiously minimal as a single verb, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only covers the basic 'run and wait' behavior. It omits critical context such as how target selects clients, timeout limits, error handling, and side effects, making it insufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (script, target, timeoutMs, label). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'target' and 'label' from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Lua'), and adds 'wait for structured return values or errors from connected clients,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_send_lua or rba_eval_lua_file. It accurately conveys the core action and expected outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrasing 'Run Lua and wait for structured return values or errors' implies it is the tool to use when you need a response from executing inline code. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like rba_send_lua (no waiting) or rba_eval_lua_file (from file), so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses an important behavioral trait: it first backs up the current destination when it exists. This is useful and goes beyond a simple 'restore' statement. However, with no annotations available, it omits other potentially critical details such as overwrite behavior, backup naming, failure modes, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the key safety behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a restore operation with two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what happens when destinationPath is omitted, what the backup file format expects, or what success/failure looks like. The useful side-effect note is insufficient for a file restoration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not explicitly map 'backupPath' or 'destinationPath' to their roles. It only hints at a source (.rba-backups file) and a destination, leaving ambiguity about the optional destinationPath and its default behavior. This falls short of compensating for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with the specific verb 'Restore' and identifies the resource as '.rba-backups file'. It also adds a key behavioral detail—backing up the current destination first—which distinguishes it from sibling restore tools like rba_restore_autoexec_backup. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 rba_restore_autoexec_backup or rba_backup_file. It states what it does but does not explain prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when a different restore/backup tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description shoulders the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond mentioning the websocket bridge, it does not explain how the 'target' parameter selects recipients, whether the code is executed immediately, or what occurs when no clients are connected. These are critical operational behaviors left undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and destination, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'target' parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. An agent cannot reliably decide how to set 'target' or anticipate the outcome without additional context, making this a sparse description for a non-trivial tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% parameter coverage, meaning the description must compensate. The term 'Lua source text' loosely maps to the 'script' parameter, but the 'target' parameter and its allowed values ('all', 'first', or an integer ID) are completely unexplained. This leaves a key invocation decision undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Send'), the resource ('Lua source text'), and the destination ('connected development clients through the websocket bridge'). This specific phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_send_lua_file or rba_eval_lua, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for sending raw Lua source text to connected clients, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as rba_send_lua_file or rba_eval_lua. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 disclosure. It does not describe potential overwrites, whether existing files are backed up, or any side effects of the sync operation. The phrase 'sync' is ambiguous about its destructive potential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource while specifying the target scope, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is not self-contained for a mutating tool with no annotations or output schema. It omits the meaning of the backupExisting parameter, potential risks, and any configuration of 'executor targets,' leaving an agent without enough information to use the tool safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the only parameter 'backupExisting'. An agent receives no guidance on how this boolean affects behavior, such as whether it controls creating backups before overwriting target files.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sync'), the specific resource ('unified RBA and Roblox Instance Manager autoloader'), and the scope ('every configured executor target'). It distinguishes itself from sibling rba_sync_autoexec by emphasizing 'every' target, which implies a bulk operation versus a single-target sync.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case: when you want to synchronize the autoloader to all configured targets. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of rba_sync_autoexec or any alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and that joining a server job is optional. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects (e.g., leaving current server), or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. No filler or redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the behavior of 'target' (all vs first vs position), the role of 'timeoutMs', or what the return value/call outcome looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for placeId (the target place) and jobId ('public server job'), but fails to explain the 'target' parameter (all/first/position) or 'timeoutMs' (how/when it applies). Most parameters remain semantically opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Teleport the local player to a Roblox place'. It uses a specific verb (teleport) and resource (place), and distinguishes itself from sibling teleport tools (rba_teleport_to_position, rba_teleport_to_part) by focusing on places. The optional server job is also mentioned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when you need to teleport to a Roblox place. However, there is no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like rba_teleport_to_position, nor any mention of when not to use it. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states what is verified but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how failures are reported. The timeout parameter suggests network operations, but this aspect is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the components checked but omits critical behavioral details such as return format, error behavior, and side effects. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should have explained what 'verify' produces, making it inadequate for a multi-component status check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the timeoutMs parameter. While the schema defines type and bounds, the description adds no additional meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Verify' and lists the three concrete components it checks (RBA websocket service, Instance Manager connector endpoint, executor autoexec copies), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_ws_status or rba_autoexec_targets that each cover only one aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for confirming the complete local workflow is operational, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of individual status checks like rba_ws_status or rba_health_check, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only restates the action without disclosing what happens if the id is invalid, whether the operation is reversible, or what the return value indicates. The word 'active' adds a small constraint but no substantial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear about the tool's action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not address prerequisites (e.g., an active watcher), how to get the id, or expected results/errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain how to obtain or format the id. It is implied that 'id' identifies a watcher, but no guidance is given (e.g., 'use list_watchers').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop one active RBA file watcher' uses a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('RBA file watcher') with a clear scope ('one active'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_stop_all_watchers and rba_watch_file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you want to stop a specific watcher rather than all watchers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks exclusions or references to list_watchers for obtaining the id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only says 'Start' and gives no information about blocking behavior, idempotence, side effects if already running, or network/authentication implications. This is a significant gap for a server-start operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action clearly and quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple start-server command, the description names the essential action, and the schema covers the two optional parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral context like return values, blocking behavior, or how to stop the server (e.g., rba_dashboard_stop).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides host and port with defaults and bounds, but the description does not explain their role or format. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, an agent must infer the meaning from names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states a specific action ('Start') and resource ('local RBA dashboard HTTP server'). The verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_dashboard_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when the dashboard server should be started, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. The sibling rba_dashboard_stop provides contrast only by naming, not by instructional guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key safety behavior ('backing up any existing file first'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error handling, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible beyond the backup, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes a crucial qualifier about backup. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the core action and backup, but because there is no output schema or annotations, it should explain return values, failure modes, or whether a restart is needed. These gaps make it minimally viable but not fully contextualized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: sourcePath is documented, but targetPath is not. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and targetPath remains ambiguous despite having a default. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, so the agent gets incomplete parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Install'), a resource ('RBA autoloader'), and a target ('executor autoexec path'), along with a key behavior (backing up existing file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_sync_autoexec or rba_set_autorun by focusing on installing the current autoloader to an autoexec path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rba_sync_autoexec, rba_install_console_mirror). It states what the tool does but not the scenarios or conditions that would call for it, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Ping' implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm safety or disclose behavior on timeout or unreachable clients. It does clarify the return payload (round-trip timing and place/job details), which adds some transparency beyond the bare name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the main purpose and return value. However, with no annotations or output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the 'target' parameter behavior and what happens on timeout. The description is adequate but leaves key operational details to be discovered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'connected clients' but does not explain the 'target' parameter (all, first, or a specific client index) or the 'timeoutMs' parameter. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Ping connected clients'), the resource ('connected clients'), and the result ('return round-trip timing plus basic place/job details'). The specific verb and output make it distinct from sibling tools like rba_health_check, which likely checks overall system health rather than round-trip timing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (to measure latency to clients) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Start', which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose whether the process blocks, runs in background, requires an existing RBA setup, or what side effects (e.g., open ports) occur. This is a significant gap for a start tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the action and purpose. No filler words; every word contributes meaning. Highly concise and efficient for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple start tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't mention the host/port parameters, potential long-running nature, or how to verify success. It is minimally sufficient for a low-complexity operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (host has a description, port does not). The tool description adds no details about parameters, failing to clarify port semantics or how host/port affect behavior. It does not compensate for the missing port description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear, specific verb+resource: 'Start the local RBA websocket bridge'. Distinguishes from siblings like rba_ws_stop and rba_ws_status by specifying the action and its purpose. The phrase 'used by the Lua autoloader' adds context that clarifies the tool's role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through context ('used by the Lua autoloader'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives like rba_ws_stop or rba_ws_status are not mentioned. The description suggests this is the go-to for starting the bridge, but falls short of providing preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a non-destructive, save-state operation by calling it a 'snapshot' and 'restore point,' but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., capsule must exist), whether snapshots are overwritten, or any other side effects. This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, with the first front-loading the primary action and resource, and the second adding usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or tangential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema, but the description fails to explain the required 'id' parameter or the optional 'reason' parameter, and it gives no indication of return values or snapshot contents. With no annotations or output schema, the description is the only context and is insufficient for full operational clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters, 'id' and 'reason.' The agent must guess that 'id' refers to a capsule identifier and what 'reason' is for. This is a critical gap that prevents correct invocation without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a source snapshot for one script capsule.' It also differentiates from sibling snapshot tools by narrowing scope to a single script capsule and explicitly frames it as a time-travel restore point, which is a distinct purpose from development or context snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before an edit or experiment' as a restore point. While it doesn't name alternatives like rba_development_snapshot or rba_context_snapshot, the guidance is clear and contextually sufficient for selecting this tool over broader snapshot options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It honestly states a read-only listing action and the optional filtering behavior, but it does not disclose return format, whether path matches exact or prefix, or how backups are sorted. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loads the primary action and resource, and adds the optional filter without any redundant words. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential action and parameter intent. However, it omits expected return values and any prerequisites or related workflow context, making it marginally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a bare string 'path' with no description, so the description's reference to 'one original path' adds useful meaning. However, it stops short of clarifying matching semantics (exact, prefix, or glob), leaving ambiguity for a 0% schema coverage tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'workspace file backups' and adds the optional filter 'filtered to one original path.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_list_autoexec_backups, which target a different backup type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 rba_restore_backup or rba_backup_file. It does not state scenarios for listing backups or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral details such as read-only status, error handling, or requirements (e.g., capsule existence). The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but no explicit safety or behavior information is given, so the description does not fully carry the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no filler and is easy to parse, making every word earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers the basic purpose but omits potential return format, error scenarios, or prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has incomplete information, though the tool's simplicity mitigates the gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only a bare 'id' field with length constraints and no description. The description adds context by indicating the tool operates on 'one RBA script capsule', implying that 'id' refers to the capsule's identifier. However, this is implicit rather than an explicit parameter description, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'List' with a specific resource ('time-travel source snapshots') and scope ('for one RBA script capsule'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list all capsules or manage capsules. It directly states the tool's function and is not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case (listing snapshots for a specific capsule) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related tools like rba_list_script_capsules or rba_rollback_script_capsule. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It doesn't mention return format, error behavior (e.g., missing file), or any side effects. For a read-only list tool, some additional context would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and target. No wasted words, perfectly scoped for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally viable but lacks details about return value or error scenarios. It is adequate for basic invocation but not rich enough for an agent to fully anticipate outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('script profiles from the workspace profile JSON file'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like rba_list_script_capsules by explicitly naming the source and data type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as rba_run_script_profile or rba_list_script_capsules. The description merely states what it does without any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the byte cap, which is useful, but fails to describe return value, error handling, or path details. Partial transparency only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the lack of an output schema and annotations places the burden on the description to explain return values or failure modes, which it does not. An AI agent would not know what the tool returns or how errors manifest, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not name or explain the parameters. The phrase 'capped to a safe byte limit' hints at maxBytes but doesn't clarify its adjustable nature or the path parameter's semantics. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Read), the resource (a workspace file), and includes the safety cap, which distinguishes it from siblings like rba_write_file or rba_execute_file. It is concise and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied: use this to read a file's contents. However, there is no explicit comparison with alternatives or mention of when not to use it, such as for image files or executing code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the previous position is remembered, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose coordinate space, effect on current state, or any safety/reversibility details beyond the remembered position.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is compact and front-loaded with the primary action. It wastes no words and delivers the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, but the description only covers the basic coordinate teleport concept. Important details about target selection, timeout, yaw, and return behavior are absent, so the context is incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that x/y/z are coordinates. It adds no meaning for target, timeoutMs, or yawDegrees, leaving most of the parameter semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Teleport'), a precise resource ('the local character'), and a mode ('exact coordinates'), plus the side-effect of remembering the previous position. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_teleport_to_part or rba_teleport_to_place.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'exact coordinates' implies this tool is for coordinate-based teleportation, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling teleport tools or state when to prefer this over rba_teleport_to_part or rba_teleport_to_place.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether connected clients are disconnected, whether the bridge can be restarted, or any persistent state changes). This lack of detail gives the agent limited insight into the operation's consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text or irrelevant detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is suitable for a zero-parameter stop action but omits any context about the bridge's lifecycle or how it relates to rba_ws_start. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent may not know what to expect after calling this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the baseline, a description earns a 4 for parameter semantics when there are no parameters; no additional parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Stop' and identifies the resource 'local RBA websocket bridge,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like rba_ws_start and rba_ws_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, effects on other tools, or when it should be invoked. The implied usage from the name is the only clue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states what the tool does (lists clients) but does not explicitly mention read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention what the list contains or the return format, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this gap. Overall functional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable because there are none to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('connected RBA websocket clients'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like rba_client_info or rba_disconnect_client. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is read and returned as an MCP image, and restricts to PNG/JPEG formats. However, it does not mention error behavior, path constraints, or size limits, leaving a clear gap for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and clearly communicates the input and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose, input type, and return value. It does not explain failure modes or environment-specific details, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for 'path' (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying that the path refers to a workspace PNG/JPEG file, giving the parameter context it otherwise lacks. However, it does not detail path formats or relative/absolute resolution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read'), the target resource ('workspace PNG/JPEG file'), and the output ('return it as an MCP image'). This distinguishes it from siblings like rba_read_file (likely for text) and capture screenshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rba_read_file or the screenshot capture tools. The description implies it is for image files but does not explicitly state exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail: 'RBA captures the current source first as a safety snapshot,' which hints at the destructive nature of restore. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation overwrites or replaces the current file, nor does it specify permissions or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no filler. Every word earns its place, and the safety-snapshot note adds value without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple restore operation, especially with the safety-snapshot context. However, it lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., capsule must exist, snapshotId validity), and error handling, which might be needed for confident execution.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (id and snapshotId). The param names are somewhat self-explanatory but not defined in context, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific action ('Restore') and resource ('capsule source file') plus context ('from a selected snapshot'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, list, snapshot, and run capsule tools. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to restore a capsule source from a snapshot, providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., using rba_restore_backup for non-capsule files), so it lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It usefully discloses that missing permissions block before Lua reaches a client and mentions optional snapshotting. However, it omits other important behaviors like synchronous execution, side effects, and error handling, leaving gaps for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence with a clear sequential flow, front-loaded with the key phases. It is efficient and every part contributes, though it could be better structured with explicit steps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the mode enum, target selection, timeout semantics, or return behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without deep schema analysis.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely hints at snapshotBeforeRun ('optionally snapshot') and possibly syntaxCheck ('Preflight'), but leaves id, mode, target, timeoutMs, and snapshot syntax unexplained. This provides marginal value for understanding parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs (Preflight, permission-check, snapshot, dispatch) and clearly identifies the resource (script capsule). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rba_create_script_capsule or rba_script_preflight by describing the full execution workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys that this is the full run workflow for a script capsule, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use rba_script_preflight for a dry run'), so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the file will be created if it does not exist, which is key behavioral context not present in the schema. Since no annotations are provided, this is useful. It does not mention other side effects like directory creation, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple append operation, the description covers the main behavior but lacks usage guidance and parameter details. Given no annotations or output schema, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that 'content' is text to be appended and that the path is relative to the RBA workspace. However, the createDirectories parameter is not explained, and the description does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'append' and the resource 'file inside the RBA workspace', and adds the creation behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling write_file and read_file tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rba_write_file. The description implies the append use case but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the primary behavior (capturing the process) and the return type (MCP image). However, it omits behavioral details such as whether the window is brought to foreground, how failures are handled (e.g., process not found), and whether the capture is of the full screen or just the window. The mention of 'for visual context' adds a small hint about purpose but not deeper behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target, then states the output. No wasted words or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and return value, and the schema handles parameters. However, it lacks explicit usage context (when to choose this over similar tools), potential failure scenarios, and any prerequisites. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for its three optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as the role of 'outputPath' or 'focusWindow'. It does not reference or clarify any parameter usage, so it does not exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Capture') and the specific target ('RobloxPlayerBeta.exe'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'rba_capture_window_screenshot' by focusing on the Roblox process. The output ('screenshot as an MCP image') is also explicit, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the mention of RobloxPlayerBeta.exe: the tool is for capturing the Roblox game window. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the general 'rba_capture_window_screenshot' sibling, nor any exclusion conditions (e.g., when Roblox is not running).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool does not execute the inspected script, which is a critical safety behavior. The term 'snapshot' implies read-only intent, but the description does not explicitly state read-only across all aspects (e.g., no state mutation, no network calls), though it provides a key non-execution guarantee.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly separates the snapshot contents from the safety note.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, making the description the primary source of invocation context. It lacks essential information about parameter semantics, expected output, and when to use the tool over the many related siblings, so it is incomplete for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only scriptPath has a description). The description does not explain target, timeoutMs, includePing, or staleAfterMs, leaving their meaning ambiguous. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to add semantic value for the majority of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this is a combined development-oriented snapshot covering RBA health, crash likelihood, autoexec state, and optional static script preflight. It distinguishes itself from individual sibling tools like rba_health_check and rba_script_preflight by packaging these into one call, and it explicitly notes it does not execute the inspected script.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for development overviews (development-oriented snapshot) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over running individual sibling tools such as rba_health_check or rba_script_preflight. There is no exclusions or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this combined snapshot is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the core behavior—watching a file and sending/evaling on change—but omits important details like the persistent nature of the watcher, the need for a Roblox connection, stopping mechanisms, or error handling. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and context without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that initiates a long-running watch process, the description lacks essential context: how to stop it, prerequisites like an active Roblox connection, and the existence of related watcher-management tools (rba_unwatch_file, rba_list_watchers). No annotations or output schema compensate, leaving the description incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'workspace Lua file' (path) and 'send or eval' (mode), but the other four parameters (target, timeoutMs, debounceMs, syntaxCheck) have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The description only partially illuminates the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Watch'), identifies the resource ('workspace Lua file'), and explains the action ('auto-send or eval it in Roblox on change for live editing'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling one-shot tools like rba_send_lua_file and rba_eval_lua_file by emphasizing the watch-and-react behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'on change for live editing' provides clear context for when to use this tool: during iterative development where you want automatic updates. It implies this is preferred over manually sending files each time, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates a destructive operation ('Clear') and discloses filter options, but does not state the scope (all clients vs current), reversibility, or return behavior. Sufficient but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and optionality. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The core action and filter options are covered, but the tool has no output schema and no annotations. Missing details about parameter semantics and side effects make it somewhat incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only says 'type/client filters' and does not describe acceptable values, how filters combine, or what clientId represents. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Clear' with the resource 'buffered RBA events' and adds optional scoping with 'type/client filters'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_events (which likely lists events) and rba_wait_for_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to clear buffered events and provides clear context for the optional filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only' and 'without changing any process', which is a critical safety trait. It also enumerates possible output states, providing transparency about return values. However, it does not describe parameter effects or edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful behavioral constraints. No filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains safety and output statuses, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it lacks usage guidance versus siblings and does not clarify parameter semantics. For a diagnostic tool with 4 parameters, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only includePing and staleAfterMs have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information, leaving target and timeoutMs unexplained beyond their names and constraints. With modest schema coverage, the description should have compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Read-only Roblox process and RBA heartbeat diagnosis' with specific output statuses (healthy, bridge_disconnected, not_running, likely_crashed). This distinguishes it from mutation tools like rba_restart_roblox and establishes a specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied ('read-only diagnosis') but no explicit when-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. Siblings like rba_health_check may overlap, so more direct guidance would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does a good job by disclosing the exact steps: discovering/verifying the executable path, closing 'only RobloxPlayerBeta processes', and launching normally. This explicitly communicates safety-focused behavior, though edge cases like process-not-found or launch failure are not addressed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides a concise step-by-step summary. Every word carries meaning with no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives a solid high-level overview of the restart process, but lacks details on parameter semantics (e.g., what restartDelayMs controls) and potential failure modes. Since there is no output schema, the description also does not clarify what the return value indicates, leaving some gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers only 33% of parameters (only closeAll has a description), and the tool description provides no additional parameter details. Para meters like restartDelayMs and waitForProcessMs are entirely underexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Safely restart RobloxPlayerBeta.exe', a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It also details the multi-step process (discover/verify path, close processes, launch), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other aspects like crash detection or screenshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a restart of Roblox is needed, but provides no explicit 'when to use' versus alternatives or exclusion criteria. The emphasis on 'Safely' hints that this is the recommended method, but no direct comparison to manual restart or other sibling tools is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The phrase 'preserve the currently installed file first' discloses a key behavioral side effect beyond what annotations provide (none). This is useful for the agent to anticipate that a backup will be made before restoration. It does not detail all risks (e.g., overwriting target), but the added preservation note is significant and not merely repeating schema info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is an example of efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and a key behavior but lacks important context. It does not explain what a sidecar backup is, what 'preserve' actually does (e.g., where the copy goes), or how targetPath relates to the default restore location. An agent would likely need more details about the restoration workflow to use it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters but does not. While backupPath is reasonably inferable from its name, targetPath's purpose and the meaning of its default empty string are ambiguous. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess how to set targetPath.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: restore an autoexec sidecar backup. It also notes a unique behavior (preserving the currently installed file first), which distinguishes it from generic restore tools like rba_restore_backup. The verb 'restore' and resource 'autoexec sidecar backup' are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for restoring autoexec sidecar backups, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like rba_restore_backup or mention any exclusions. Since there is no comparison to sibling tools, the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the main behavioral actions: starting/attaching the bridge, syncing autoexec, optionally starting the dashboard, notifying clients, and returning health. This gives a useful high-level picture of side effects and state changes, though it lacks details about prerequisites or consequences of each step.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly structured sentence: front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of steps. Every phrase earns its place, and the punctuation/colon format makes the pipeline easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a multi-step bootstrap tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to be more detailed to make up for that. It omits parameter semantics, preconditions (e.g., what 'attach' vs 'start' means), return value shape beyond 'health', and side-effect details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters, but it does not. 'optionally start dashboard' maps loosely to startDashboard/dashboardPort, and 'notify clients' maps to notify, but timeoutMs, includePing, and exact relationships/behaviors are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Prepare') with a clear resource ('RBA') and scope ('for an agent session'), plus a concise sequence of steps (start/attach bridge, sync autoexec, dashboard, notify, health). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_start_live_session or rba_health_check by presenting a unique orchestration role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for an agent session' provides a clear context of when to use this tool: as an initialization/setup step before interacting with RBA. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended usage window is clear and no exclusionary guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 validation is 'local' and uses 'luac', which implies no Roblox interaction, but it does not specify the return value or behavior on failures, leaving key behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and contains no extraneous words. Every element contributes meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and input types but omits expected output/return format and edge cases like what happens when both path and source are provided or validation errors. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It maps 'path' to 'workspace file' and 'source' to 'provided source', adding some meaning, but it does not explain precedence, constraints, or how the two relate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Run local Lua syntax validation with luac') and the resource targets ('a workspace file or provided source'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings that send or execute Lua code, as it is explicitly a validation step 'before sending to Roblox'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before sending to Roblox' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the effect (setting default client) but omits critical details: whether the default persists across sessions, whether it overwrites a previous default, scope (global vs. session), or side effects on subsequent tool calls. This is a state-mutating operation with insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It earns its place and is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter setter, the description is adequate in stating the primary purpose, but it leaves gaps around persistence, scope, and behavior on invalid input. Since the tool is simple, a score of 3 reflects that it meets the minimum viable standard but is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a type (integer) and constraint (exclusiveMinimum > 0) for clientId. The description adds meaningful context by indicating that clientId is the client to set as default and that it applies when targets are omitted. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it doesn't provide additional details like how to obtain a clientId.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('set the default client') and identifies the resource affected (default client). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rba_set_client_status (which sets client status) and rba_client_info (which reads client info).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context by explaining that the default client is used when a tool target is omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that changed content is backed up by default, which is a meaningful behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, prerequisites, or error conditions, leaving partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and contains no redundant or vague wording. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves several aspects unexplored, such as the return value, failure handling, and behavior when backupExisting is false. While adequate for a simple two-parameter sync tool, it does not fully cover the context needed for complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references both parameters: 'one autoexec target' corresponds to targetPath, and 'backing up changed content by default' corresponds to backupExisting. Yet it does not provide explicit format or type expectations, so compensation is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (sync), the resource (workspace unified autoloader), and the target (one autoexec target), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool rba_sync_all_autoexec. It uses a specific verb and provides a concise scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one autoexec target' implies a use case contrasting with syncing to all targets, indicating when this tool is preferred. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks a full exclusionary statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the tool 'Shows' and 'verifies', suggesting a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm side effects, whether it modifies anything, or what happens on hash mismatch. The description provides some transparency through the verbs, but lacks detail about output or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does. There is no redundant information or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Show every configured executor autoexec target') and then adds the verification aspect, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main functionality. It explains both the listing and verification behavior. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning expected output format or typical usage context, but for a simple inspection tool, the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any irrelevant parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('configured executor autoexec target'), and adds a secondary action ('verify its installed loader hash against the workspace source'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_install_autoexec or rba_sync_autoexec, which focus on installation or synchronization rather than inspection and verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a read/verification use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. It is clear enough that it is for checking autoexec targets and hashes, but lacks direct guidance on when to choose it over related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. 'Show' implies a read-only action, but it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., connection requirements), or what exactly is returned. It is adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or excessive detail. Every word contributes to the purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter getter, the description is sufficient. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not elaborate on the structure of the returned configuration. Given the lack of an output schema, a bit more detail could help, but it is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is nothing more to add beyond what the empty schema already indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current RBA autorun-on-connect configuration'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from the sibling tool rba_set_autorun by being the getter counterpart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (read the current autorun setting) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. It is not misleading but offers no direct guidance beyond the obvious getter semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a safe read-only operation, and 'built-in' scopes the result set, but it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or describe the output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource type and implies a list result. It does not mention output format or the relationship to rba_run_preset, so it is not a full 5, but it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter space, so the description has no need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4 and the description does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('built-in Lua websocket presets'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_run_preset, which executes presets rather than listing them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs to see available presets, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention related tools such as rba_run_preset that could consume the listed presets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which provides some transparency. However, it does not state what is returned (e.g., list of watcher paths, status) or mention any permissions or limitations, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It wastes no words and is well-suited for the simple nature of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It fully explains the tool's purpose for a simple list operation. However, it could benefit from a note about return format or relationship to other watcher tools, but given the simplicity, this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('active RBA file watchers'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_watch_file (creates watchers) and rba_stop_all_watchers (stops watchers), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to see active watchers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context from sibling names helps, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states the action ('stop') and scope ('every active'), but it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, whether it affects watchers from other sessions, or what the return value indicates. For a mutation tool, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. It does not waste words and is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does. It could have added a note about the irreversible nature of stopping watchers or alternatival usage, but the core context is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly avoids inventing any.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a specific resource ('every active RBA live-edit file watcher'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_unwatch_file (which stops a single watcher) and rba_list_watchers (which lists watchers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for stopping all watchers at once, as opposed to targeting a single one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like rba_unwatch_file, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats. The usage context is implied by the word 'every' but not explicitly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 states the action and scope ('local'), but does not disclose side effects, what happens if the server is not running, or whether the operation is reversible. For a simple stop command, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does. The scope ('local') and purpose are clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (stop) and the specific resource (local RBA dashboard HTTP server). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rba_dashboard_start and rba_ws_stop by specifying the dashboard server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (stop the dashboard server) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rba_ws_stop. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the critical non-execution guarantee ('Never executes the script') and lists the static checks performed. It does not cover return format or failure behavior, but the key safety trait is well communicated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core action, and every phrase adds value. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two optional params and no output schema, so descriptions must clarify inputs and expected results. It addresses inputs indirectly and omits what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, errors, report structure). For a preflight tool, this is a notable gap, but overall the description is adequate for basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'path' refers to a workspace Lua file and 'source' refers to provided source code, but does not fully clarify parameter interaction or expectations. The guidance is partial, not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's verb ('statically inspect') and resource ('a workspace Lua file or provided source'), and enumerates the specific checks performed. It distinguishes itself from sibling rba_lua_syntax_check by adding broader static analysis (lifecycle/loop checks, dynamic loading, remote calls, transform writes) and explicitly noting it never executes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by saying 'before execution', which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer preflight use. No exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: capsules 'preflight and snapshot source before dispatch' and explicitly cautions that they 'do not claim to OS-sandbox code inside a Roblox executor.' This goes beyond a simple 'create' by explaining side behaviors and a key limitation, though it does not cover all details such as return values or 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a named RBA script capsule') and followed by a valuable behavioral clarification. Every sentence earns its place; there is no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description gives enough operational context: it defines the capsule, mentions preflight and snapshot behavior, and notes the sandbox limitation. It lacks explicit return value info or prerequisites, but given the sibling ecosystem and complete parameter schema, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning: 'permission-gated' hints at the permissions parameter, and 'one workspace Lua file' aligns with the path parameter, but these are largely redundant with existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the exact resource ('a named RBA script capsule'), clearly distinguishing it as the creation operation from sibling capsule management tools like rba_list_script_capsules or rba_run_script_capsule. It also adds a concise definition of what a capsule is (a 'permission-gated policy envelope'), which strengthens clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes a clear use case: creating a capsule for a workspace Lua file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like rba_set_script_capsule_permissions for modifications, but the phrase 'permission-gated' implies this is for initial creation rather than subsequent changes. Overall, the context is clear even without direct exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 adds valuable safety behavior: refusal with a pre-staged index and avoidance of git add --all. These are meaningful traits not visible in the schema. While it does not describe errors, return values, or permissions, the disclosure of core safety mechanisms earns a strong score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. The second sentence adds critical safety context without bloat. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow (commit specific files, push optionally) and a key edge case (pre-staged index refusal). It leaves some gaps, such as return values and error handling, but the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'branch' has a description). The tool description compensates somewhat by explaining that 'files' are selected existing files and that 'push' is optional and targets the current branch. However, 'message', 'remote', and the default behavior of 'branch' are not elaborated beyond schema defaults. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Explicitly commit selected existing RBA workspace files and optionally push the current branch.' This gives a specific verb (commit), resource (selected files), and an optional follow-up (push). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rba_git_status (which only shows status) and file-writing tools by focusing on the selective commit/push workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the appropriate usage context: committing specific files without risking unrelated scripts being included. It explicitly notes that it 'refuses to run with a pre-staged index' and 'never uses git add --all,' which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't suitable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a clear 'when not to use' contrast with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the output fields but does not explicitly state the read-only nature or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies a safe, non-mutating operation, but more explicit disclosure would be better.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase contributes meaning, with no wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by enumerating the returned fields. The only minor gap is the somewhat vague 'policy-sandbox limitation,' but overall the description is complete enough for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by specifying what information will be returned, which is the primary semantic content for a no-arg list operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('List') and the specific resource ('registered script capsules'), and enumerates the returned attributes (permissions, source file, timestamps, policy-sandbox limitation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_list_capsule_snapshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes it clear when to use this tool: when you need to list registered script capsules. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Sibling tool names provide enough differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the operation replaces explicit capability grants and that the next capsule run is blocked if static source requirements are not granted, which is a critical side effect. This goes beyond what the name alone implies, though it doesn't cover all potential behaviors like error handling or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a crucial consequence without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description provides adequate context: it names the resource, the action, and a critical implication for capsule execution. It could be improved by mentioning whether the capsule must exist or what the return value is, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'script capsule's explicit capability grants' helps interpret the 'permissions' parameter as the new grants, and 'Replace' implies the array entirely overwrites existing grants. However, the description does not explicitly define what each enum value means or clarify the format of the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Replace a script capsule's explicit capability grants.' It uses a specific verb (Replace) and resource (script capsule's explicit capability grants), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_script_capsule or run_script_capsule. The additional note about blocking the next run adds context that clarifies the intended purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is used when you need to update or replace the permission grants of a script capsule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know when to select it over related capsule tools. The behavior of blocking the next run when static requirements are unmet provides context for when this operation is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that only visible desktop windows are listed and that they are suitable as screenshot targets, providing some behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or return format, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, simple listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and its intended use, without needing elaborate detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, as there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'visible desktop windows', and adds the purpose 'can be used as screenshot targets'. This distinguishes it from other list tools in the sibling set, as no other tool lists windows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating the windows are for screenshot targets, indicating this tool should be used before capturing a window. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique functionality, that's acceptable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers a meaningful behavioral guarantee: 'without changing Git state.' It also discloses the categories of information returned, providing useful transparency. It does not describe error behavior or output format in detail, but for a read-only status tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that communicates action, target, scope, and side-effect behavior with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete: it names the inspection target, the data returned (branch/origin, changed/staged files, fingerprint), and explicitly states no Git state changes. With no output schema, this sufficiently communicates the tool's function and result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying what repository details are reported, even though there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource (RBA workspace Git repository) plus the exact scope: branch/origin, changed/staged files, and autoloader fingerprint. This distinguishes it from mutating Git tools like rba_git_sync_files by emphasizing read-only inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (inspect repository state, read-only) and explicitly notes it does not change Git state, implying it's the safe inspection choice. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![roblox_bridge_agent MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/evonar543/roblox_bridge_agent/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/evonar543/roblox_bridge_agent)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![roblox_bridge_agent MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/evonar543/roblox_bridge_agent/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/evonar543/roblox_bridge_agent)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/evonar543/roblox_bridge_agent'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server