Game scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it states the scope limitation ('server Scripts never reach the client'), the caching side effect (decompiled sources saved as .luau in a temp folder mirroring the game tree), the first-call latency, and the pagination window (150 lines at a time). It does not mention permissions/auth or failure modes, but the read-oriented nature is clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the bulleted per-action breakdown, and every sentence carries information (scope, caching, latency, pagination). Slightly dense, but nothing is padding.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: what the actions do, that results are also readable on disk, the shape of search matches, and the read windowing. Only minor gaps remain (exact auth/port semantics, failure behavior when nothing decompiles).

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 coverage is 88%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: read defaults to 150-line windows governed by startLine/endLine, path must be the full path as shown by list/search, and search output is path:line matches. This clarifies parameter interrelationships (query vs limit, filter vs path) that the schema only documents field-by-field.

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 names a specific resource (the game's client-side code: LocalScripts, ModuleScripts) and enumerates the three concrete operations (list/search/read) with what each returns. None of the siblings (screenshot, status, execute, logs, network) overlap with script source inspection, so an agent can place this tool unambiguously.

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?

Each action is given a clear purpose ('list: script paths (optionally filtered)', 'search: regex across all decompiled sources', 'read: one script's source'), which serves as when-to-use guidance for the sub-commands. It also flags the cost condition ('The first search decompiles everything (a few seconds)'), but offers no explicit exclusions or comparison to an alternative tool.

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