moose_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies what is returned (documentation block, signature, return docs, inheritance chain), how method inheritance is handled (inheritedFrom flag), and includes a token-budget warning ('never a dump'). This goes beyond minimal requirements.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter usage, inheritance behavior, and token budget. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture of what the agent can expect: exact content of the returned record, parameter behavior, inheritance handling, and output size constraints. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that when a method is inherited, it is returned flagged as inheritedFrom. This semantic is not present in the schema and helps the agent understand the lookup behavior.

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 returns one precise record from the indexed Moose.lua, listing the exact contents (LDoc block, signature, return docs, inheritance chain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like moose_search (which would search broadly) and moose_class_tree (which would show a tree). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'indexed Moose.lua' are specific.

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 clear usage context: class is required, method is optional, and it explains behavior when method is omitted. It also notes that inherited methods are flagged. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it just misses the explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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