search_script_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the search is substring-based and covers both names and bodies, which is meaningful behavioral information. It also lists accepted kind values, clarifying input constraints. As a search tool, no side effects are expected, and the description adequately conveys the operation.

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 highly concise, using two short sentences and a list. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and parameter enumeration. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formats are covered. The description explains the tool's purpose, provides usage context, and lists valid kind values. Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no nested objects), this is sufficient for accurate selection and invocation, though it could mention workspace context like other sibling tools do.

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 0%, and the description compensates by enumerating the exact allowed values for the 'kind' parameter: trigger, effect, scope, event_target, modifier, on_action, data_type. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. It does not elaborate on 'limit' or 'query' semantics, though query is self-explanatory and limit has a default in the schema.

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 'Substring search across script_docs names and bodies,' specifying the action (search), the resource (script_docs), and the scope (names and bodies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_definition or search_definitions, which are likely exact or definition-focused.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use when you know roughly what you want... but not the exact name.' It gives concrete examples ('prestige', 'add flag') and implies this is for fuzzy/partial searches. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for exact searches, so it lacks a clear when-not-to-use statement.

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