List instance signals

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the getconnections dependency, the degraded fallback behavior (signals still listed, ConnectionCount=null with a Note), the full return shape, and the error case. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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-loads purpose followed by fallback behavior and return shape, which is well ordered. There is minor redundancy (read-only appears as both idempotency=read-only and Safety: read-only, and the Signature line duplicates the schema), but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

For a medium-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the degraded-mode semantics, prerequisites, and the error case, so an agent can call it correctly. Only marginal gaps remain (e.g., what the Note text contains).

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 (with Lua-expression semantics) and threadContext. The description restates the signature but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (Enumerate) and resource (RBXScriptSignal members/events of a Roblox Instance) with the scope of also reporting per-signal connection counts. This clearly separates it from a pure connection-lister, though it never names the relevant siblings (list-signal-connections, count-signal-connections) to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Provides usage context via metadata (Phase: observe, cost=medium, Requires: active-client, resolved-target) and a fallback condition when getconnections is unavailable. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives like list-signal-connections or find-instances-with-connections, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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