List all connections on a signal

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the getconnections dependency, the graceful { error } degradation path, phase=observe, cost=medium, required preconditions (active-client, resolved-target), and produced artifacts. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations can't carry.

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 the purpose and answer-value, then layers structured metadata lines. It is dense but each line is informative, though the signature/phase/cost block runs slightly long relative to the core explanation.

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 read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape ({ Signal, Instance?, ConnectionCount, Connections }), the failure behavior, and preconditions, leaving nothing an agent needs unstated.

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 four parameters (including defaults and the includeFunctionInfo=true behavior) are already documented. The description's signature line mostly restates the schema, adding little semantic meaning beyond it.

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+resource ('Enumerate every connection on an RBXScriptSignal') and enumerates exactly what metadata it reports per connection. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like count-signal-connections or get-connection-info.

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?

It self-identifies as 'the main tool for answering "what is listening to this event and where is each handler defined?"', giving a clear usage context and a prerequisite (requires getconnections). It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state a when-not condition, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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