Read ACS names from compiled bytecode

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from compiled ACS lumps, that it only returns names for functions and named scripts (not numbered scripts), and that it's intended for source-less mods. While it doesn't mention error handling or side effects, the read-only nature is implied and the description is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and limitations.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage scenario, limitation, and alternative. However, it lacks details on return format and error conditions, but these are somewhat mitigated by the tool's simplicity.

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 0%. The description does not explicitly describe the 'file' parameter, its format, or accepted values. While the context implies the file is a path to a WAD/PK3, this is not directly stated, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 tool reads function and named-script names from compiled ACS in WAD/PK3 files, specifically for source-less mods. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_acs_symbol by noting the limitation for numbered scripts.

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 explicitly states when to use (for source-less mods) and when not to (numbered scripts), and directs users to find_acs_symbol for numbered scripts with source. This provides clear usage guidance and alternatives.

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