Find bytecode size outliers

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: 'cost=high', 'Requires: active-client', and 'Produces: bounded-candidates'. These are behavioral traits not present in the annotations. It does not disclose pagination or output shape, keeping it from a 5.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the trailing metadata block repeats information already carried by annotations ('idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only' duplicate readOnlyHint/destructiveHint). The 'any?' signature is low-value filler. Some sentences do not fully earn their place.

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 read-only scanning tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the key operating context: phase, cost, required client, and that output is bounded candidates. What is missing is any description of the returned ranking/format, but the core invocation context is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with defaults and constraints. The description's inline 'Signature' repeats the parameter names but with vague 'any?' types, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Scan scripts and rank by getscriptbytecode size.' It adds a goal ('find complex/high-value targets quickly') that helps distinguish it from generic bytecode tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., search-bytecode, find-functions-by-complexity), so it stops short of 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?

The 'Phase: observe; cost=high' tags imply this is an expensive reconnaissance step, and the stated goal hints at when it is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'Requires: active-client'. Usage is only implied.

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