script_search_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that the tool performs a search and returns result metadata, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not modify scripts, or any performance implications. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich; no contradictions exist.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource scope, then immediately specifies the return values. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 search tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, the target script types, and the nature of returns. It does not delve into edge cases or performance characteristics, but given the straightforward nature of a search operation and the detailed schema, the description is fairly complete. It could have mentioned the project-wide scope more explicitly, but that is implied by 'project-wide'.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive entry in the input schema. The description adds an overview of the search scope but does not elaborate on parameter usage, format, or interactions beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('Perform') and a clear resource scope ('all Scripts, LocalScripts, and ModuleScripts'), and lists return values (paths, line numbers, snippets). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools script_search and script_grep, which likely perform similar searches. The purpose is clear but not uniquely positioned.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_search or script_grep. It does not state any conditions, exclusions, or trade-offs. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient given overlapping sibling tools.

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