Roblox connection status

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

Read-only behavior is already declared by readOnlyHint, so the description appropriately focuses on what the tool actually does: it actively pings the Roblox client and returns connection state, clients, place, executor, latency, log counts, and a loadstring script while waiting. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not explain how each state should be interpreted.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before listing return states and fields. The crucial 'Call this first' instruction is placed at the end instead of being front-loaded, which slightly reduces structure quality.

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 carries the burden of explaining return data, and it does list the state values, connected clients, place, executor, latency, counts, and waiting script. It is nearly complete for a status tool, though it does not clarify what each connection state means or imply next steps for non-connected states.

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%, and the single client parameter is already documented as coming from list_clients with a last-connected default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: it checks whether Superbase is connected to a running Roblox game. It also names the exact connection states returned and distinguishes the tool as the one to call first, which clearly separates it from diagnostic siblings such as list_clients or get_logs.

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 instruction 'Call this first' gives clear initial-workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for later diagnostics, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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