Find functions sharing the same upvalue table (closure clusters)

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it depends on getgc + getupvalues, caps the scan, and flags truncation, plus reports group size and sample functions. This is useful non-obvious operational detail.

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 core prose is front-loaded and clear, but the trailing metadata block (Phase, cost, idempotency, Safety, Produces) largely repeats the annotations and adds boilerplate. Some sentences do not 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (table identity, share count, sample functions) and notes scan caps/truncation and defaults. It is essentially complete for correct invocation, though it could state prerequisites like requiring an active client more explicitly.

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 the four parameters (minGroup, limit, maxScan, threadContext) are already fully documented. The description only restates the signature without adding syntax or behavioral nuance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: walking Luau functions in the GC and inspecting their upvalues to find tables shared by several functions. It clearly frames the output as closure clusters (module/factory grouping), which distinguishes it from neighbors like find-upvalue-xref and get-function-upvalues.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use case — clustering functions defined together via a shared private table. However it does not name an explicit alternative (e.g. find-upvalue-xref or get-function-upvalues) or state when-not to use this tool, leaving that to inference.

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