rba_lua_syntax_check

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.