find_niagara_scratch_pad_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the scanning scope (six specific scripts), node type being searched, and the return fields. This provides good behavioral transparency for a read operation, though it could mention if there are side effects or permissions needed.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a summary line followed by details. It efficiently conveys the core functionality in a few sentences, though it could be improved by including parameter explanations.

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?

The description covers the scanning scope and return structure well, but lacks parameter documentation. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. It could mention error handling or performance, but overall is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description does not explain the two required parameters (module_name and system_path) despite 0% schema description coverage. While 'named scratch pad' implies module_name is the scratch pad name, system_path is not described. The description adds minimal value over 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 purpose as a 'reverse lookup' to find where a scratch pad script is referenced in the stack, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_niagara_scratch_pad_modules or apply_niagara_scratch_pad. It provides a specific verb ('find') and resource ('scratch pad script references'), and gives an example use case.

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 includes a clear use case ('Use this to answer "what uses GetDataInterfaceLength?" without walking every emitter manually'), indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives.

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