re_cs2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that schema returns 'name:offset' strings, explains the substring filter behavior, the huge unfiltered output, and the distinction between count and total_matched. It does not detail interface-specific behavior or potential errors, but the core behaviors are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'CS2-specific', then quickly lists operations and key caveats. It avoids wasted words but is a bit dense and run-on, using abbreviations and a dense format that could be more readable. Still, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two operations and no output schema, the description covers crucial return information ('name:offset' strings, count/total_matched) and the major pitfall (unfiltered schema). It omits details about what the interface operation returns and when to use interface vs. schema, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant value by explaining that filter is a substring match, that unfiltered schema is huge, and that the limit defaults to 100 with a max of 2000. It also clarifies the optional 'all' flag indirectly through the 'ALWAYS pass filter' warning, going beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 identifies this as a CS2-specific tool for querying interface and schema information, distinguishing it from sibling tools. It lists the two operations (interface, schema) and what they operate on, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'query' or 'get' and leaves the interface return format somewhat ambiguous.

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 context: it is CS2-specific, and for schema operations it strongly instructs to always pass a filter because unfiltered results are huge. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'CS2-specific' framing and operation details serve as effective guidance.

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