search_loctypes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching a specific file but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., matches, full definitions), how results are ordered, error conditions, or any limitations like file size or search performance. This leaves key behavioral aspects unclear for an AI agent.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., structured data, text snippets), how pagination works with results, or any behavioral nuances. For a search operation, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand outcomes.

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 schema fully documents parameters (query, page, pageSize). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the query searches 'in the file', which is already inferred from the tool name and schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Search') and target resource ('loctypes.txt file for location/object type definitions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_data_file' or other search_* tools that likely search different game data files, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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. With many sibling search tools (e.g., search_data_file, search_iftypes, search_npctypes), there's no indication of whether this is for location-specific searches, how it differs from general file searches, or any prerequisites for use.

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