find_shadowing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Scan' implies a read-only analysis and 'potential' accurately suggests heuristic reporting, but the description does not explicitly state that no files are modified, whether includes are followed, or whether findings are returned as a list, message, or diff.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and subject, then adds a clarifying example in parentheses. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required, fully documented parameter and no output schema or nested structure. The description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool for the stated purpose. A brief note on the return format or side-effect-free behavior would make it fully complete, but the low complexity lowers the burden.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter ('path') as the path to a script file, so the description adds little beyond saying the file is a script. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not enrich the parameter meaning further.

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 identifies a specific action ('Scan a script') and a specific resource type ('script') with a clear purpose: detecting potential variable shadowing, and gives a concrete example ('redefining playerid'). It is clear and distinct from generic peers such as audit_script, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to detect variable shadowing in a single script. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, what limitations exist, or which sibling tool (e.g., audit_script, search_pawn_script, get_function_body) might be more appropriate for broader or different analysis.

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