Scan connection handlers by defining script source

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the hard dependency on getconnections and debug.info, the graceful degradation to { error } when getconnections is missing, that a missing debug.info merely blanks Source, and that results are bounded by maxScan/maxResults. That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and the sourcePattern/maxScan semantics are front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The trailing metadata footer (Signature, Phase, cost, idempotency, capabilities, safety) partly duplicates the annotations and schema, adding some redundancy without derailing the read.

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 high-cost, read-only scan with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ Matches, MatchCount, ScannedInstances, Truncated }), truncation behavior, the required capabilities, and failure modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter (including root expression semantics, defaults, and the sourcePattern substring rule). The description largely restates sourcePattern behavior and the caps rather than adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('sweep a hierarchy for event handlers and pinpoint which script each handler is defined in') and differentiates itself from adjacent tools like scan-closures-by-source and find-event-connections by scoping to connected handlers and their defining script. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 concrete triggering questions ('find every event handler defined in <script>', 'where are all the handlers backed by this module?'), which clarifies when to reach for it. It does not, however, explicitly name competing siblings such as find-event-connections or list-signal-connections and when to prefer them, so it stops short of a 5.

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