List the engine's replicatable-signal whitelist

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, yet the description adds real context beyond them: the list is typically large (180+ entries), output is capped at limit, it requires the getsignalwhitelist executor function, and it degrades with a clear { error } if that function is unavailable. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent needs.

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 opening sentences are front-loaded and purposeful, but the definition is heavy with taxonomy tags ('Phase: observe; cost=medium... Capabilities: getconnections. Produces: bounded-candidates...') that partly duplicate the annotations (safety=read-only mirrors readOnlyHint) and a closing boilerplate pointer to tool-schema. These lines dilute rather than earn their 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 fills the gap by naming the return shape ({ Count, Truncated, Signals }) and clarifying that Count reflects the true total while Truncated flags dropped entries. Combined with the stated requirements, failure behavior, and cap semantics, 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the cap/Count/Truncated behavior. The description's restatement of the limit cap and a terse signature line add marginal value over that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Enumerate the full set of signals the Roblox engine allows to be replicated to the server') and explicitly positions it against sibling tools ('the global allow-list that can-signal-replicate / replicate-signal check against'). An agent can distinguish it from those per-signal probes without opening any 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?

Frames the use case clearly ('which signals can I drive server-side? up front, without probing them one at a time'), implicitly routing the agent away from one-at-a-time checks like can-signal-replicate. However, it never states an explicit exclusion or 'use can-signal-replicate instead when...' condition, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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