rba_install_console_mirror

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.