Read Roblox Studio state

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.