Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• execute_luaA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  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 it uses loadstring, captures output and return values, and returns errors with traceback. However, it does not mention side effects, sandboxing, or Studio context limitations, which are important for a code execution tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then an iterative usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  With no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (captured output, return values, error with traceback). It also provides an iterative workflow ('iterate by reading the error and re-running'). While it doesn't cover edge cases like side effects, it is complete for a code execution tool.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., no parameter syntax or format details), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Luau code string inside Roblox Studio'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on arbitrary execution with output capture, whereas read_studio_state and get_errors are for reading state and errors respectively.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  It explicitly says 'Use this to build, script, inspect, or modify anything in Studio', giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't state exclusions or alternatives, but the broad scope and sibling names make the intended use obvious.

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

• get_errorsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the returned data ('message + traceback') and recency, but does not mention ordering, side effects, or error handling. This is adequate for such a simple read-only tool but not rich in behavioral detail.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, zero fluff, action verb first, and all words earn their place. Very efficient and front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple tool with one optional parameter and clear return format ('message + traceback'), the description is mostly complete. It does not explicitly mention the limit parameter, but the schema covers that, so the description adds value with the recovery context and return content.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already fully describes the parameter's meaning and constraints.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'most recent failed executions' with detail on content ('message + traceback'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as execute_lua and read_studio_state by focusing on error retrieval.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'Useful for recovering context' indicates a clear use case, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. This matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

• read_studio_stateA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the server-owned snippet mechanism and the 'no arbitrary code' safety guarantee, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, describe side-effect absence, or explain what the returned 'clean form' means in terms of data structure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise list of query modes and a safety note. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains how to invoke it and what to expect at a high level. It does not detail return formats, but the query names and examples give enough guidance for correct usage.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The schema covers path and depth but leaves the enum values for query without descriptions. The description adds semantics for each query option, including an example for path, bridging the 67% schema coverage gap effectively.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly identifies the tool as inspecting Roblox Studio state and enumerates the four query modes with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings (execute_lua, get_errors) by emphasizing 'no arbitrary code,' making its read-only scope explicit.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for safely inspecting state without arbitrary code execution) and explains each query type. It implicitly contrasts with execute_lua via 'no arbitrary code,' but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios.

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