invoke_remote

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'invoke' and 'return its result', but does not disclose potential side effects of server-side execution, error behavior, or that the call may block/yield. This is insufficient for a network-calling mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core function.

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?

Given the complexity of invoking a RemoteFunction (network call, potential side effects, error handling, return value), the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to obtain 'ref', what the result looks like (no output schema), or how it differs from firing an event. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation of the 'ref' and 'args' parameters beyond 'given arguments', leaving their meaning entirely to the schema's technical type definitions. This adds no semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Invoke') and resource ('RemoteFunction') and clarifies the mechanism ('InvokeServer'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_remote, which likely handles RemoteEvents. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for invoking RemoteFunctions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fire_remote, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance or comparison.

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