Find the most complex functions (RE starting points)

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new context: it requires getgc + getconstants/getupvalues/getprotos, caps the scan, and flags truncation. It also declares phase/cost and points to tool-schema on failure, though the 'Safety: read-only' line merely repeats the annotation.

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 sentences are well front-loaded and high-value, but the trailing metadata block restates annotation-derived facts ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only') and re-lists the signature that the schema already provides, so not every sentence earns its 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields (script source, line, function name, pointer, three counts) and by disclosing prerequisites, scan caps, and truncation behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'heaviest first' ordering for limit, the metric semantics of sortBy, and that maxScan caps the scan and triggers a truncation flag. It still does not fully restate enum/default behavior, so not a 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?

States a specific verb (rank) and resource (every Luau function in the GC) plus the ranking criterion (complexity by constants/upvalues/protos). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list-gc-functions or find-functions-by-constant without opening the schema.

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 ('know where to start reverse-engineering') and explicit follow-up routing to get-closure-constants / find-string-xrefs / call-graph tools. It does not state when *not* to use it versus other GC-scanning siblings, so it falls short of a full 5.

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