locate_candidate_functions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description's 'Score' operation aligns with a non-mutating analysis. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, only noting input sources, without explaining return format or side effects.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action. It contains no redundant phrases and is appropriately brief, though the phrasing could be clearer.

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?

With no output schema and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks explanation of what 'score' produces, how results are returned, or when to use it. The partial parameter mapping and missing usage guidance make it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description maps to several parameters: files ('code files'), parameterNames ('params'), headerNames ('headers'), and targetUrl ('target URL hints'). However, keywords and maxCandidates are omitted, leaving these parameters unexplained despite their importance.

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 specifies a clear action ('Score') and a specific resource ('likely signature/token/request functions'), and mentions input sources ('code files, params, headers, and target URL hints'). This distinguishes it from generic search tools like search_in_scripts. However, the term 'Score' is ambiguous, leaving the exact output unclear.

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 such as search_in_scripts or trace_request_to_code. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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