Get function upvalues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Safety: read-only' and 'idempotency=read-only' lines merely repeat them. The genuinely additive facts are 'Requires: active-client', 'cost=medium', and 'Produces: structured-observation', which are useful but thin; 'On failure: inspect tool-schema' deflects rather than explains.

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 in the first sentence and the metadata tags are compact, but the Signature block duplicates the schema verbatim and the trailing 'On failure' sentence is boilerplate that consumes space without adding actionable detail.

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?

For a read-only tool with a fully documented schema and complete safety annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and cost adequately. However, with no output schema it gives only 'structured-observation' and does not characterize the returned upvalue data, leaving a modest 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 the schema fully documents all six parameters, and the baseline is 3. The inline Signature block just restates the same parameter names and types, adding no meaning (e.g. no explanation of how query and sourceQuery interact) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 matching functions in getgc() and dump their upvalues,' naming the GC enumeration source and the object acted on (upvalues). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like get-closure-upvalues and find-upvalue-sharing, though it never names an alternative to route between them.

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?

The phrase 'for live reverse engineering' plus 'Phase: observe' and 'Requires: active-client' imply the context of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of sibling alternatives such as get-closure-upvalues or find-upvalue-sharing that an agent might otherwise pick.

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