Memory Leak Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds value by specifying exactly which code patterns are flagged, but it does not describe output format, performance implications, or how findings are reported—leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 states purpose and specifics without waste. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It does not explicitly state the return format, but for a scan tool, results are implied as a report of leaks, which most agents would assume. Overall it is sufficiently complete for a focused scan utility.

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 coverage is 100% and the lone parameter 'path' already has a descriptive schema description ('Absolute path to the repository root'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it sits at the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('Detect') and a clear resource ('memory leaks'), enumerating concrete examples (addEventListener without cleanup, useEffect without return, setInterval without clearInterval) that make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling scan tools like dead_code or security_scan.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident from the description, so an agent can infer when to use it (any memory leak concern). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the clarity of the scope provides sufficient context for most scenarios.

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