Scan closures by source

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: cost=high, requires an active client, phase=observe, and that output is bounded-candidates. It does not detail pagination or result shape, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 is compact and structured. Minor redundancy: 'Safety: read-only' and 'idempotency=read-only' partly duplicate the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 carries return-value burden, and 'Produces: bounded-candidates' plus cost=high gives an adequate sense of output and expense. The active-client prerequisite is stated. Only minor gaps (exact result shape) remain for a read-only scan tool.

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 four parameters including defaults and constraints. The description only restates the signature with types and adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Find), resource (getgc closures), and a precise filter scope (debug source contains a target substring), which inherently separates it from the by-name sibling. It does not explicitly name scan-closures-by-name as the alternative, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Provides context markers ('Phase: observe', 'Requires: active-client') that imply when the tool is applicable, but offers no explicit when-to-use versus the by-name/by-source sibling or any exclusion conditions. Guidance 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.