Get a tool's input schema and Luau signature

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is redundant but consistent. The description adds real value beyond annotations: return shape, phase=observe, cost=low, produces agent-guidance, and on-failure guidance to inspect for exact fields/defaults. No contradiction, and several behavioral traits disclosed.

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?

Dense but well-organized and front-loaded: the core purpose is in sentence one, modes follow, then a signature/metadata footer. The footer ('Phase: observe; cost=low; idempotency=read-only. Requires: none...') partially restates the annotations, adding minor redundancy, but every sentence largely earns 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does so thoroughly: title, compiled description, quality grade, guidance fields, category, mutatesState, Luau signature, per-field list, and a runnable example. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is already 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the mode interaction: {name} returns near-miss suggestions when unknown, {search} matches across name/title, and no-args returns the whole surface. It clarifies how parameter presence changes output, which the schema alone does not.

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 (return) and resource (input schema for any tool) with a clear modifier (compact, Luau-friendly form). Distinguishes itself from siblings like list-tools and suggest-tools by describing its exact output shape (title, signature, per-field list, runnable example). An agent can tell it apart 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this from inside script to learn the right args BEFORE calling a tool, instead of guessing and failing.' Also enumerates the three invocation modes (name, search, no-args) with what each returns, giving the agent clear selection guidance.

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