Find upvalue xref

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the 'active-client' precondition, cost=medium, and bounded-candidates output shape. The 'idempotency=read-only'/'Safety: read-only' lines partly restate annotations, 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the trailing meta-tags are boilerplate-heavy and redundant ('idempotency=read-only' followed by 'Safety: read-only'). The signature line duplicates the schema, adding length without new information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more of the return burden, yet 'Produces: bounded-candidates' is vague about result shape and ordering. It covers preconditions and cost adequately for a read-only tool whose annotations already signal safety.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and constraints. The description's 'Signature' line merely restates the schema types without adding format, ranking, or default semantics.

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+resource ('Find functions whose upvalue names or values match a query'), which is clear enough to distinguish from adjacent tools like get-closure-upvalues or find-upvalue-sharing. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, 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?

It gives operational context ('Phase: observe', 'Requires: active-client') that implies when the tool is usable, but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as find-upvalue-sharing or get-function-upvalues, nor any exclusion conditions.

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