JsSafetyChecker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the type of analysis (AST-based) and that it returns findings, which suggests a non-mutating, read-only check. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify files, nor does it describe any side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral nuances.

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 that conveys the tool's purpose, method, target, and output in a compact form. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy.

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 tool is simple, with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description says 'Returns findings' but does not specify the structure or format of the findings, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists. Otherwise, it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 with descriptions for both parameters (target and timeout). The description only repeats the 'file or directory' target scope, adding no significant meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource (JavaScript safety checker) and its specific AST-based checks (duplicate function, duplicate HTML ID, syntax errors). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like PythonSafetyChecker and ShellSafetyChecker.

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 clearly implies that this tool is for scanning JavaScript files/directories, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'use PythonSafetyChecker for Python'), so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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