detect_logic_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires any permissions, or how it interacts with the project. The '[mode: real]' prefix is ambiguous and does not explain expected behavior, side effects, or output.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it is not well-structured. The leading '[mode: real]' is cryptic and unexplained, and the sentence lacks a clear subject or context. It front-loads an obscure qualifier rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain inputs, return values, and behavioral context. It only lists a few error types, omitting essential information like projectPath requirements, analysisDepth semantics, and what the tool returns. This is a significant gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. While the listed error types (race conditions, null refs, state inconsistencies) map to the checkTypes enum values, it does not explain the projectPath or analysisDepth parameters. The description adds only marginal meaning for one parameter and leaves the others unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool detects race conditions, null refs, and state inconsistencies, which are specific logic error types. It uses an active verb and names concrete targets, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'detect_race_conditions', which also detects race conditions, causing potential confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention overlapping tools like detect_race_conditions or detect_security_issues, nor does it indicate scenarios where this tool is preferred. The phrase '[mode: real]' hints at a mode but does not clarify usage context.

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