Find instances that have connections on a named signal

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the dependency on the executor's getconnections, the graceful { error } degradation, the limit-based scan cap that sets Truncated, and the descending sort order. These are the operational traits an agent needs before invoking.

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 first sentences are front-loaded and dense with useful detail, and the return shape is spelled out. However, the trailing metadata block (Phase, cost, Requires, Capabilities, Produces, Safety, On failure) is largely boilerplate that dilutes an otherwise tight description.

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 compensates by naming every returned field ({ Signal, Root, ScannedInstances, Truncated, MatchCount, Instances }) and explaining failure behavior. For a medium-cost read-only scan tool, nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema already documents root evaluation, the limit-as-scan-cap semantics, and signalName requirements. The description's inline signature and limit note largely restate that, adding little new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (walk/report) and resource (descendant instances with active signal connections) and names the exact mechanic (reads inst[signalName], checks getconnections). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list-signal-connections or scan-connections-by-source, which operate on a different axis.

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?

Gives concrete motivating questions ('which Parts in Workspace have a Touched handler?', 'which GuiButtons are wired to Activated?') that tell the agent when this tool fits. It does not explicitly name when to prefer an alternative such as find-event-connections or list-instance-signals, so no exclusions are stated.

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