Roblox Run Code

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying game state, security implications), whether the request is blocking, or error handling. The 'waitForResponseMs' parameter hints at asynchronicity but the description does not clarify behavior.

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 a single clear sentence with no redundant information. It is concise but could be slightly improved by front-loading the core action more directly. Still, it is efficient.

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?

The tool executes arbitrary code, which has complex outcomes, yet no return format, error scenarios, or prerequisites are described. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and limitations.

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 parameters are already well-documented structurally. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('send a Luau code execution request') and specifies the target ('through the Studio-side companion runtime boundary'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'roblox_inject_code' by mentioning the runtime boundary, though it could be more explicit about what the execution entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., roblox_inject_code, roblox_edit_script_lines). No prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual cues are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario.

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