Find identical / duplicated functions (IDA find-identical)

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: it caps the scan and flags truncation, declares the producer of bounded candidates, and states the runtime dependencies. The remaining gap is that it doesn't quantify the cap behavior beyond 'caps the scan'.

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?

Front-loads the core mechanic in the first clause and keeps the rest dense with useful detail. Minor redundancy exists in the trailing metadata (idempotency and safety both assert read-only), which slightly dilutes an otherwise tight, well-ordered description.

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 scanner with no output schema, the description explains the return shape well (per-group shared hash, function count, sample ptr/name/source/line), the prerequisite APIs, truncation behavior, and failure guidance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (minGroup, limit, maxScan, threadContext) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description only restates the signature and gestures at 'caps the scan', adding no semantics 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?

States a concrete verb+resource and mechanism: walk every Luau function in the GC, hash each with getfunctionhash, group by identical hash. It explicitly anchors the concept ('the runtime equivalent of IDA's find identical functions') and names what it surfaces (clones, copy-pasted module logic, repeated handlers), which cleanly separates it from siblings like find-functions-by-complexity or find-upvalue-sharing.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is useful ('reveals clones and copy-pasted code') plus operational preconditions (requires getgc + getfunctionhash, active-client) and cost/phase signals. It does not, however, explicitly compare against the many near-neighbour xref/complexity scanners, so the routing decision is inferential rather than spelled out.

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