Inspect a Roblox instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses what comes back ('class, selected properties and children') and the connected-state prerequisite — meaningful behavioral context, though it omits error behavior when a path is invalid and gives no hint about payload size for large subtrees.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does plus format, what it returns, and the precondition. The example is front-loaded and no wording is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming class, selected properties and children. The only soft spot is 'selected properties', which is vague about how the properties parameter affects the response, but overall an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's inline path example adds only a small illustration of syntax that the schema's 'Dotted path starting at game' already conveys, and it says nothing about the client or properties parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a Roblox Instance') and immediately anchors it with a concrete dotted path example ('game.Workspace.Map.Part'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as get_hierarchy or find_instances, which an agent could plausibly pick instead.

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?

'Requires the connected state' is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent when the call will fail. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_hierarchy, find_instances, or get_game_info, so the choice among overlapping introspection tools is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.