Find event connections

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds cost=medium, the capability (getconnections), and the produced artifacts (bounded-candidates, created-handle), which are not in the annotations. The only slight oddity is "created-handle" against readOnlyHint=true, but handles are internal bookkeeping rather than a mutation, so this is not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact signature, phase, preconditions, capabilities, outputs, and failure guidance — no filler sentences. The stacked telegraphic fragments ("Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only") are dense but readable and each line earns its place.

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 supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: required preconditions, a rough output shape (bounded-candidates, created-handle), the underlying capability, and a pointer to tool-schema for defaults and an invocation example. Only the return-value detail and the boundary against sibling connection tools remain thin.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the signature, and its "limit: any?" / "threadContext: number?" typings are actually vaguer than the schema's number/integer definitions, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured data.

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 (Inspect) and resource (RBXScriptSignal connections) plus the scoping keys (instance path + signal name), so the agent knows exactly what is queried. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as list-signal-connections, get-connection-info, or find-instances-with-connections, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

"Phase: observe" and "Requires: active-client, resolved-target" give useful preconditions and hint at when the tool is applicable. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative statement, no exclusion, and no routing to a sibling for the overlapping connection-listing cases.

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