rba_detect_roblox_crash

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.