search_procedures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that event phrases resolve without picking an arbitrary implementation, that scope changes priority or constraint semantics, that query does not imply scope, and that signatures are read from file dumps only for displayed results. These are non-obvious behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds meaningful detail. However, it is somewhat dense and partially repeats scope/query semantics already documented in the input schema, so it is not maximally tight.

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 tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and full parameter coverage in the schema, the description covers all necessary operational aspects: search modes, event recognition behavior, scope semantics, config/extension context, and result-dependent signature reading. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The narrative description mostly restates scope semantics already present in the input schema and adds no new parameter-level detail beyond it. The schema itself is doing the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Найти процедуру или функцию' in loaded configuration code or one selected extension. It further differentiates exact-name search from word-based search and notes exported versus non-exported coverage, making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable among siblings.

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 practical usage context: exact names find non-exported procedures, word search finds only exported ones, scope behaves differently for ordinary search versus recognized events, and config is tied to the loaded configuration. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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