Count connections on a signal (breakdown)

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description adds operational context annotations cannot express: it depends on the executor's getconnections, degrades to a clear { error } when that is unavailable, and requires an active-client/resolved-target context at cost=medium. It also names the exact return shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 core purpose, breakdown fields, and routing guidance are all front-loaded in the first three sentences, which is exactly the information an agent needs. The trailing metadata block (phase/cost/idempotency/Safety: read-only) partially duplicates the annotations and the schema, adding length without new signal, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 count-only read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return field list, the dependency (getconnections), the failure mode ({ error }), the execution context requirements, and a pointer to tool-schema for exact fields on failure. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 fully documented in the schema itself, including the instancePath/signalName interaction. The description's 'Signature' line restates the parameters without adding format or fallback semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve an RBXScriptSignal and return a fast numeric breakdown') and enumerates exactly what is counted (Total, Lua vs Foreign, Enabled vs Disabled, WithFunction). It distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by name, so an agent can tell it apart from list-signal-connections without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as a 'lightweight first pass before list-signal-connections when you only need counts,' and supplies concrete trigger questions ('how many handlers are on this RemoteEvent?'). It also states the inverse condition ('Does NOT describe each function, so it is much cheaper than the full listing'), which routes the agent to the alternative when descriptions are needed.

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