Get the argument types a signal fires with

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description adds real context beyond them: dependency on the getsignalarguments executor function, graceful degradation to a { error } when unavailable, prerequisite state (active-client, resolved-target), cost level, and the return shape with a safe serializer. That is substantial disclosure not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose and value are front-loaded, but the tail is a dense metadata block that partly duplicates structured data: 'Safety: read-only' and 'idempotency=read-only' repeat the annotations, 'Signature: {...}' repeats the schema, and the closing 'inspect tool-schema' line is generic boilerplate. Useful information is present, but not every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return shape ({ Signal, Instance?, Arguments }) and the serializer caveat. Combined with prerequisites, cost, failure behavior and the executor dependency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 instancePath, signalName and threadContext, including the 'leave signalName empty' condition and the `return <instancePath>` evaluation semantics. The description's 'Signature: { instancePath, signalName?, threadContext? }' merely restates the schema rather than adding 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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Report the value TYPES that an RBXScriptSignal fires its connected handlers with'. It frames the exact question it answers ('what shape is the payload of this event?') and implicitly separates it from the connect-and-wait approach and from sibling tools like count-signal-connections or list-signal-connections.

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 a clear scenario — reverse-engineering a remote-driven or engine signal to know how to construct a fire-signal / replicate-signal call — which names downstream siblings. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. when an alternative signal-inspection tool is preferable), so it stops short of a 5.

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