silent_catch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral info. 'Detecte' implies a read-only analysis, and the examples clarify what counts as a silent catch. However, it does not disclose whether the tool returns matches, modifies anything, requires permissions, or how it interacts with the wider codebase—so behavioral coverage 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 compact: one sentence states the core purpose with concrete examples, and a second clause gives explicit usage context. Every part earns its place, with the main action front-loaded and no redundant filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and a clear analytical purpose, the description supplies enough to select and invoke it correctly. It covers what is detected, example patterns, and when to run it. It does not describe the output format, but with no output schema this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'severity' parameter has enum values plus per-value explanations. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents the parameter. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Detecte') and resource ('les blocs catch qui avalent les erreurs silencieusement'), and gives concrete examples: 'catch vides, return sans log, .catch(() => default)'. This clearly distinguishes it from general sibling tools like 'check' or 'guard' by naming its exact search target.

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?

It gives explicit usage timing: 'A lancer lors d'un audit ou apres /review'. This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. Since no sibling tool appears to target silent catches, the guidance is clear enough.

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