analyze_component

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

Adds value beyond annotations by stating it is static analysis ('No browser, no network'), confirming readOnly and idempotent behavior. Annotations already cover safety profile.

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?

Three concise sentences: core function, usage context, and sibling comparisons. Every sentence provides unique value with no redundancy.

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?

Fully covers purpose, usage, and what the tool does not do. With output schema present, no need to explain return values. Sibling differentiation is excellently handled.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description mentions 'static a11y + UX analysis' which gives context but doesn't add specific parameter details beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'analyze' and resource 'component's source' with specific frameworks. Differentiates from siblings audit_repo and audit_url by contrasting scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Best for pre-commit feedback on a snippet' and provides clear when-not instructions by naming alternatives audit_repo and audit_url.

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