detect_race_conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists what the tool detects without stating whether it is read-only, what output it produces, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Finds' and enumerates hazard types in a compact list.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the return format, whether the tool is a safe read-only analysis, or how to interpret the results, leaving an agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.

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% documentation for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, relying on existing schema definitions.

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 the specific verb 'Finds' and clearly identifies the resource (race conditions) with four concrete hazard categories. This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like audit_performance and audit_data_integrity which target different aspects of code quality.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trace_data_flow or sanity_check_script. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the list of hazard types; no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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