List Roblox clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, providing safety expectations. The description adds the 'every' quantifier and the 'private local bridge' scope, but does not describe return format, pagination, or any potential side effects. This is consistent with the annotations and adds minimal behavioral context.

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: 'List every Roblox client connected to the private local bridge.' It contains no filler, repeats no schema information, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description fully captures the tool's purpose and scope. The return value (a list of clients) is implied, and no additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description has no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('Roblox clients') with a clear scope ('connected to the private local bridge'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_roblox_windows by focusing on bridge-connected clients rather than OS windows.

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 by stating the tool lists all connected clients, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_roblox_windows. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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