gorebox_generate_discovery_mod

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose a side effect — results are written to a dump file in the mod folder — which is genuinely useful. But it omits auth/permission needs, whether it overwrites an existing mod, and how the generated mod is deployed or run, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional trigger placed last. No filler or repetition; efficiency is good, though it could be marginally tighter.

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 tool with real side effects and no annotations or output schema, the description should cover the end-to-end flow — where the dump lands and that gorebox_read_api_dump consumes it. It explains what is generated but not how the output is used, leaving the agent short of what it needs to act on the result.

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 both parameters (mods_dir, mod_name) are already documented with types and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-caveat detail beyond the schema, 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+resource: generating a Lua mod that enumerates API functions, globals, tables, and callbacks. This is precise. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling gorebox_generate_mod, which an agent could easily confuse with this specialized discovery generator.

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?

"Use this when you need to learn what Lua API is available in a game that uses Lua scripting" gives a use condition, but it largely restates the purpose. It never names the natural follow-up tool (gorebox_read_api_dump) or any alternative, leaving the workflow to inference.

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