dex_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only operation, and the listed output fields give some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, what happens if the bridge is disconnected, or the exact return format (e.g., booleans, nested tables). This is adequate for a simple status check but leaves room for more detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and lists all relevant output fields without any filler or redundancy. It is perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics. It lists the included game info fields (name, placeId, client version, capabilities) and indicates a connection status. For a simple status-check tool, this is fairly complete, though it could explicitly state the format of the connection status or error handling. Overall, it covers the essential information.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers the parameter space. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource (Roblox bridge connection status and basic game info). It also enumerates the exact fields reported (name, placeId, client version, capabilities), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on properties, search, or code execution.

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 establishes a clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs to verify the Roblox bridge is connected or retrieve basic game information. There are no direct exclusions or alternative tool references, but the tool's purpose is unambiguous enough that no further guidance is needed.

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