ygo_analyze_lua

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that parsing is AST-based via luaparse and that simulator-profile warnings may be emitted, which is useful behavioral context. However, it never states what happens when neither luaCode nor luaPath is supplied (all 5 params are optional), whether one takes precedence over the other, or what the cost is of includeApiCalls on a large script.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence: the action and scope lead, and the enumerated capabilities follow as a colon list. Nothing is redundant, though the single-sentence form makes the long enumeration slightly hard to scan.

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 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the returned categories, which partly substitutes for a missing output schema. It is still incomplete on the source-selection question (luaCode vs luaPath with zero required params) and on error behavior for malformed scripts.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains deep, luaCode, luaPath, passcode and includeApiCalls. The description's mention of 'Effect API calls' and 'constants' hints at the includeApiCalls/constants output but adds no format, default, or precedence detail 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 gives a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('Lua structure of ANY card script') and enumerates the extracted artifacts (effects, summon procedures, API calls, constants, warnings), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The clause 'not just official ones' carves out scope, but no sibling (e.g. ygo_script_insights or ygo_ensure_script) is named, so differentiation from neighbors is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'not just official ones' suggests it applies to custom/modded scripts where a lighter insight tool might fail, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over ygo_script_insights or ygo_ensure_script.

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