rba_send_lua

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.