scan_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key safety fact: 'Nothing is changed.' However, it says nothing about traversal depth, how trigger sites are identified (AST parse vs. text match), behavior on non-JS/TS or minified files, or cost/time on large projects — all relevant for a source-scanning tool.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the parameter constraint, then a safety note. No filler and nothing out of order.

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 single-parameter read-only scanner with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers purpose, the parameter, and non-mutation. The main remaining gap is return shape — whether output includes file paths, line numbers, and oscillator configurations — which the phrase 'and where each one is triggered' only hints at.

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 well by defining 'path' as the absolute path of the game's folder — absolute vs. relative and the folder-vs-file distinction are exactly the failure modes worth calling out. It does not mention path handling on other platforms or what happens with an invalid path, keeping it below 5.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'List the sounds a JavaScript or TypeScript game makes with oscillators, and where each one is triggered.' This is distinguishable from library-oriented siblings like search_sounds or list_packs because it targets a game's source folder. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — point it at a game folder to inventory its oscillator sounds and trigger sites. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as search_sounds for locating a specific sound, so the agent must infer the routing.

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