Lightweight anti-cheat surface summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context: each probe is pcall-guarded and degrades gracefully, missing executor functions are reported as unavailable rather than failing, and it states what the tool does not do (no concealment, no proof of detection).

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 and the four probes are front-loaded and informative, but the trailing meta line ('Phase: observe; cost=medium; idempotency=read-only... Safety: read-only. On failure: inspect tool-schema...') is boilerplate that duplicates the annotations and template filler rather than earning 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 supplies the return shape ({ runServiceConnections, gameMetatableReadonly, nilInstanceCount, suspiciousGlobals, notes } or { error }), prerequisites (active-client), and failure behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and the single threadContext parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it — the 'Signature: { threadContext: number? }' line merely restates the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('summarizes the most common anti-cheat surfaces') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling scan-hook-surfaces tool. The four enumerated probes make the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use ('only as lightweight ambient context after execution-footprint-audit') and when-not ('does not prove detection or provide concealment'), and names the alternative it complements rather than duplicates.

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