scan_netcode_rpc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful scope beyond the name by listing the marker types and concerns it detects, and 'scan' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not state permissions, output shape, limitations, or whether the scan has side effects.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. Its telegraphic style is efficient, though it could be slightly clearer as a complete sentence.

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 simple single-parameter scan tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives a reasonable scope summary. However, it does not explain when an agent should reach for this netcode-specific scan rather than a general script search, nor does it describe the result shape.

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?

The input schema has full description coverage for the single max_files parameter, including its default value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already documents it thoroughly.

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 names a specific verb and resource: a scan of netcode RPCs, enumerating ServerRpc/ClientRpc/NetworkVariable markers plus delivery and ownership hints. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from inspection siblings such as find_script_references or find_scripts_by_content.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions, and no named alternative for netcode-specific auditing versus generic script searching. The intended usage is implied only by the 'Netcode RPC scan' framing.

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