js_search_in_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool searches scripts but does not disclose potential side effects or confirm it is read-only. The description describes basic functionality without elaborating on behavioral traits beyond what is obvious from the 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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the verb, resource, and intent without any extraneous information. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not specify the format or structure of the search results (e.g., matched lines, file paths). Given the tool's purpose, describing the return value is important for completeness, and this gap reduces the overall context provided.

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 all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specifies the action (search), resource (all JS scripts), and purpose (locate encryption-related code) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like js_get_all_scripts (which retrieves all scripts) and crypto_* tools (analysis after search).

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 implicitly suggests usage for finding encryption code but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making it adequate but not explicit.

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