roblox_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the read-only nature upfront, describes what each action retrieves, and provides useful context like default values and parameter purposes. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 description is well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by an organized action list. Each action is concisely described with its purpose and relevant parameters. While comprehensive, some action descriptions could be slightly more concise (e.g., 'texture_info' has a lengthy explanation). Overall, most sentences earn their place by adding necessary clarification.

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 tool with 10 parameters, 9 actions, and no output schema or annotations, the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what each action does, and how parameters relate to actions. The main gap is the lack of output format information, which would be helpful given the complexity and absence of an output schema.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the semantic meaning of each action and how parameters map to specific actions. It clarifies which parameters are used by which actions, provides default values not in the schema, and explains the purpose of complex actions like 'texture_info' with specific use cases. This goes well beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states this is for 'read-only queries against the Roblox Studio scene' and specifies the verb 'retrieve' for the actions. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its siblings by emphasizing its read-only query nature, which contrasts with management, playtesting, scene manipulation, scripting, and toolbox operations implied by the sibling names.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for read-only queries, with the 'action' parameter selecting specific retrieval operations. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on querying rather than modification, though it doesn't name specific alternatives. The action list serves as a comprehensive menu of when to use each query type.

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