lookup_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('raw doc entry verbatim, including supported scopes and targets') and states it is authoritative. It does not mention error behavior or side effects, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise and well-structured with no superfluous text.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and return format. It lacks explicit error scenarios and parameter details, but these are secondary to the core function and are partially covered by the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the categories (trigger, effect, scope, event target, modifier) which imply the 'kind' parameter values, and 'name' is implied as the identifier. However, it does not explicitly map these to parameter names, leaving some ambiguity.

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 performs a lookup for specific game elements (triggers, effects, scopes, etc.) in the game's generated documentation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_localisation and search_definitions by specifying the exact resource types and the authoritative nature of the documentation.

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 a clear usage guideline: 'Prefer it over recalled knowledge for anything you are about to write.' This tells the agent when to use this tool as a verification step. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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