find_script_references

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool performs a read-only grep operation, is case-sensitive, and returns file, line number, and text. It does not mention hidden behaviors like addon handling, but the core behavior and output are transparently described.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('Grep') and packs purpose, scope, case-sensitivity, and output format into minimal text. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the core function and return format, which is adequate for a relatively simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. However, it fails to explain the optional parameters (path default and include_addons) and ignores the addon file exclusion behavior, leaving the description only minimally viable for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It indirectly describes 'query' as a case-sensitive substring and 'path' as the project file scope, but it completely omits the 'include_addons' parameter and does not mention the default path res://. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to correctly invoke the tool with all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('grep') and clearly identifies the resource ('project scene, script, resource and config files') and the exact behavior ('case-sensitive substring'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_node_references or search_files by specifying it searches file contents and returns file/line/text.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_node_references, search_files, or search_in_files. It implies a text-based search use case but does not state exclusions or contrast with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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