Search Desynced Lua API

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (matching lines plus trailing context of signatures and descriptions), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive lookup, nor does it disclose search behavior such as case sensitivity, matching semantics, or the effect of the context_lines and max_results parameters.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the scope (modules/metatables) enumerated efficiently. The sentence about return format is necessary context. It is focused with no filler, though it could be slightly more compact given the long module list.

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, the description covers what is searched (modules and metatables) and what is returned (signatures + descriptions). The three parameters are documented through names and defaults in the schema. The main gap is the absence of contrast with search_game_source and lack of search-behavior detail, which prevents a 5 but the tool remains usable.

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 only 33%; only 'query' carries an example in the schema, while max_results and context_lines have no prose. The description adds nothing about parameters. This gap is partially mitigated by the fact that max_results and context_lines are self-explanatory from their names and defaults, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (search) and resource (official Desynced Lua API reference), enumerates the exact modules and metatables covered, and describes the return format (matching lines with signatures + descriptions). It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling search_game_source, which searches game source rather than API docs.

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 makes it clear this is for looking up API reference documentation, which implies usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention the alternative sibling search_game_source or state the condition that would select one over the other. The distinction between API docs and game source is left for the agent to infer.

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