Find module scripts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety line is redundant; however the description adds real context beyond them: it requires an active client, costs medium, and produces bounded candidates rather than an exhaustive listing. It also points to tool-schema on failure, which is useful operational guidance.

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 purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the remaining text is dense keyword-soup (Phase/cost/idempotency/Requires/Produces/Safety) and the inline signature duplicates the input schema without adding syntax or defaults. Readable but not every clause 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 rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description covers the important extras: prerequisite (active client), output nature (bounded candidates), and a failure recovery path. Only the missing guidance on choosing it over sibling search tools leaves a gap.

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 three parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description's signature block merely restates them, adding only that the query matches name/full path, which is a modest clarification. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search ModuleScripts') plus the matching semantics ('by substring against name/full path'), so an agent knows exactly what is queried. It does not name or differentiate itself from near siblings like semantic-search-scripts, script-grep, or get-module-source, 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?

Gives operating context ('Phase: orchestrate', 'Requires: active-client', cost=medium) that implies when the tool is appropriate, but never says when to prefer it over alternatives such as semantic-search-scripts for fuzzy lookups or script-grep for source-text search. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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