find_async_violations

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

Without annotations, the description discloses return format (summary + per-violation list), scope (production projects only), and limitations (static analysis, no fix). It does not mention performance impact or runtime behavior, but overall transparent.

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 three sentences: first states purpose and violation types, second describes output, third adds constraints and limitations. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 complexity (six violation classes) and absence of output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about return format (summary + per-violation with severity, location, snippet). It could clarify if it targets the current solution or all loaded projects, but the phrase 'across all production projects' is adequate.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 six specific classes of async/await misuse across production projects, with enumeration of violation types. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools like find_disposable_misuse or find_naming_violations by being async-specific.

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 implicitly tells when to use (for async misuse detection) and what it does not do (no fix suggestions, skips test projects). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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