find_scripts_by_content

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'find scripts' without specifying the return format (file paths? content snippets?), search scope (file names vs. content), case sensitivity, regex support, or performance implications. This is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results.

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?

Two sentences no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every word 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of file paths, matched content, count). For a search tool, this is a critical gap. Agent cannot know if response includes full file paths or just names.

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% with descriptions, but the tool description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'MonoBehaviour', 'Game.*') that help the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema. This adds meaningful value without repeating schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'C# scripts that contain a type or pattern', with concrete examples like MonoBehaviour. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts (which lists all scripts) and find_references (which finds references to specific assets).

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 description provides examples but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_references or list_scripts. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from search_assets_by_name.

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