Get detailed per-argument info for a signal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it requires the getsignalargumentsinfo executor function and 'degrades with a clear { error } if unavailable', plus the returned payload is passed through a safe serializer. It does not mention rate limits or permission prerequisites, but the executor-function dependency and degradation path are solid added context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the sibling comparison is useful, but the text is padded with metadata that largely restates the schema or annotations (Signature line, Phase/cost/idempotency, Safety: read-only, Produces). Several sentences do not earn their place against the structured fields already provided.

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, so the description usefully declares the return shape ({ Signal, Instance?, ArgumentsInfo } with nested values mapped through a safe serializer) and the failure mode. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and the annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the executor-availability fallback detail could be richer.

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 instancePath, signalName, and threadContext are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'leave signalName empty' rule the description repeats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (report) and resource (per-argument metadata about what an RBXScriptSignal fires with) and explicitly positions itself against the sibling get-signal-arguments, describing what that tool returns versus this one. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (get-signal-arguments) and the condition that selects this one ('more detailed companion... so you can precisely reconstruct a signal's payload when crafting a fire-signal / replicate-signal call'). The when-to-use is tied to a concrete downstream task, leaving little to inference.

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