script_grep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little beyond the search scope. It does not say what a match looks like, whether results are truncated, how expensive a full-place scan is, or how max_matches interacts with the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint ('across the place') lands early. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than maximal information density.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema the description is the only place to describe the shape of results (file/path/line per match) and truncation behavior, and it omits both. Adequate but with a real gap for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so root, pattern, max_matches, and case_sensitive are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description's 'text pattern or keyword' phrasing adds mild signal about pattern flexibility but no syntax or matching-mode 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?

States a specific verb (Searches) and a precisely scoped resource (Scripts, LocalScripts, ModuleScripts across the place) for a text pattern. It clearly differs from single-file siblings like read_script/script_read, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 implied: use this to find text across all scripts rather than reading one script at a time, which is inferable from 'across the place'. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over read_script or search_game_tree, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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