Search Desynced game/mod source

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and limitations. It states it returns matches with context, implying a read-only search, but does not explicitly say it is non-destructive or mention any caveats (e.g., regex performance, indexing behavior, or that it searches the full workspace). The description is adequate for safety but does not go beyond the obvious.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core function (regex search over source) and then the primary use case. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundant phrases. It is efficiently structured for an agent 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?

For a search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, what is returned, and when to use it. It does not explain parameter details or explicitly differentiate from search_lua_api, but the core usage is clear. The gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema's partial coverage.

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 50% (query and path_filter have descriptions; max_results and context_lines have defaults but no descriptions). The description does not explain these parameters, their defaults, or how they interact (e.g., what 'context' refers to). It only hints at context via 'with context' but does not clarify the context_lines parameter. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states the exact verb ('Regex search'), the resource ('Lua/JSON source of the base game and all mods'), and the output ('file:line matches with context'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like search_lua_api (API search) and read_game_file (single file read). No ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly gives a use case: 'find how the base game defines/uses something before overriding it in a mod.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not name alternatives directly or explain when not to use it (e.g., for API docs vs source). The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling routing.

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