roblox_toolbox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits. It warns about toolbox models containing 'far more than their name implies' with specific examples, mentions orientation and scale mismatches, provides preference guidance for search results ('Prefer assets where HasScripts=false or IsEndorsed=true'), and explains critical post-insertion steps. This goes well beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 clear action sections and front-loaded critical information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance, warnings, or clarification. It could be slightly more concise in the 'insert' section where some details are repeated, but overall it's efficiently organized for a multi-action tool.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers all three actions thoroughly, includes critical behavioral warnings, explains parameter usage in context, and provides practical workflow guidance. The only minor gap is lack of explicit return value documentation, but this is reasonable given the tool's scope.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the practical meaning of search parameters (e.g., 'Prefer assets where HasScripts=false or IsEndorsed=true'), clarifies that 'parent' defaults to 'Workspace', and provides context about what 'strip_scripts' actually does ('Remove all scripts from an instance tree'). However, it doesn't fully explain all parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search', 'insert', 'sanitize') and resources ('Roblox Creator Store', 'models'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the toolbox/store functionality rather than general Roblox operations like get, manage, playtest, scene, or script tools.

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 each action: 'search' for finding assets, 'insert' for placing them, and 'strip_scripts' for cleaning inserted models. It includes critical warnings about toolbox models containing unexpected content and orientation/scale issues, plus specific advice to 'Always inspect the returned hierarchy before building additional objects' and 'Always do this after inserting models with HasScripts=true.'

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