detect_memory_leaks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool inspects specific leak indicators, but it does not explain the underlying behavior (e.g., whether it traverses the DOM, what kind of report it returns, or whether it has side effects). This is adequate but not rich.

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 and key details without any wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple parameterless tool, the description covers the core purpose and the types of issues it identifies. It does not explain return format or operational details, but given the lack of parameters and output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no need for parameter explanation, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties.

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 resource ('memory leaks'), and lists concrete indicators (large DOM, detached nodes, growing collections). It clearly distinguishes from sibling debugging tools like get_dom or get_react_tree by focusing on leak detection.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when you suspect memory leaks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related diagnostics. The description provides no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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