Perform exact, case-sensitive SLua symbol lookups to retrieve official source definitions, caveats, and review dates for accurate scripting reference.
Exact, case-sensitive symbol lookup with official source, caveats and review date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup. The description adds useful behavior by specifying exact case-sensitive matching and noting that results include official source, caveats, and a review date, but it does not describe miss/error behavior or source-selection limits.
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 wording. It conveys the key matching rule and result context efficiently.
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?
This is a simple lookup tool with an output schema and strong annotations, so it does not need to explain return values or safety. Still, the description lacks explicit routing against search and sibling lookup tools and does not clarify the SLUA symbol namespace.
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 single required name parameter. It adds that lookup is exact and case-sensitive, which is meaningful, but it does not describe the expected symbol-name format, namespace, or constraints such as the 128-character limit.
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 states a specific verb and resource: exact, case-sensitive symbol lookup. It implies differentiation from search tools by emphasizing exactness, but it does not explicitly identify the SLUA/Lua namespace or distinguish itself from the sibling lsl_lookup_symbol.
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 phrase 'Exact, case-sensitive symbol lookup' implies this should be used when the exact symbol name is already known, rather than for discovery. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of slua_search_reference or name the alternative search path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.