list_developer_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that the tool returns a list of developer products with specific fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or resource ownership, which are gaps for a listing tool. A 3 is appropriate as it adds useful context despite these omissions.

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 sentence with a secondary use-case statement, totaling ~25 words. Every phrase adds value: the verb, resource, scope, returned fields, and usage hint. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool has no output schema, the description adequately fills the gap by naming the returned fields (ID, name, price, description, on-sale status). The pagination parameters ('pageToken', 'maxPageSize') are self-explanatory from the schema, and the tool's complexity is low. The description is complete enough for this straightforward list operation.

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 the baseline is 3 even with no extra param info in the description. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'pageToken' parameter in context). The description stays at the output/resource level, not the input 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'developer products', and the scope 'for a Roblox universe (game)'. It also specifies the fields returned (ID, name, price, description, on-sale status), and includes a second use case ('find an ID before updating one'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_developer_product' or 'update_developer_product'.

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 says 'Use this to see a game's developer products or to find an ID before updating one', which gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives like 'get_developer_product' for a single product retrieval, though the sibling context makes this implicit.

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