search_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds useful context like 'live' source and 'line-numbered snippets', but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or any side effects. As a search tool, this is moderately transparent but not comprehensive.

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 words. It packs essential information about the tool's purpose and modes efficiently.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description mentions 'line-numbered snippets' which covers return format partially. The schema fills in parameter details, and the description provides enough context for a search tool. It could mention limitations like search scope, but is adequate overall.

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the mode types (literal text, Luau pattern, exact symbol frontier, method call) which directly maps to the 'mode' enum, and 'line-numbered snippets' relates to context_lines. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Searches live Luau source' with four specific modes (literal, pattern, symbol, method). It is specific and distinct from sibling analysis tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 searching source code, and the various modes give some context, but there are no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are analysis-oriented, so the intent is somewhat clear, but not explicitly guided.

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