find_gameplay_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor describe result format, matching semantics, or performance across large assemblies. The engine-agnostic note is a minor behavioral hint but far from sufficient.

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 no filler. Slightly thin rather than padded, so it uses its space efficiently.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a match looks like (offset, type, value) and how results are scoped. It covers the what and the cross-engine angle but omits the return shape, so it is minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents both search_terms and assembly_path with examples. The description's parenthetical examples (health, damage, speed, money) merely echo the schema rather than adding format or matching semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (gameplay-related values such as health, damage, speed, money) across game code, which is more semantic than raw scanning. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling search tools (search_code, pattern_scan, search_binary_pattern), leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 only guidance is that it 'works with any engine by using the appropriate search tools,' which hints at cross-engine applicability but never states when to use this over the obvious alternatives like search_code or pattern_scan. No exclusions or selection conditions are given.

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