redm-get-lua-examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'finds' examples, implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether it returns structured data, handles errors, has rate limits, or requires authentication. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Find Lua code examples in the RDR3 discoveries repository.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, users don't know what the tool returns (e.g., code snippets, file paths, or structured data). This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'topic' parameter clearly documented as 'Topic to search for (e.g., "ped", "vehicle", "weapon").' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid topics or search behavior. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find Lua code examples in the RDR3 discoveries repository.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('Lua code examples'), and context ('RDR3 discoveries repository'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'redm-search-discoveries' or 'redm-read-discovery-file', which might also involve searching or retrieving content from the same repository.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'redm-search-discoveries' or 'redm-read-discovery-file', which could be relevant for similar tasks. Without this context, users must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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