javascript-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the numerous heuristics (e.g., find_any_usages, find_unsafe_type_casts, find_loose_generics all target type debt; find_event_listener_leaks, find_react_effect_leaks, find_svelte_effect_leaks target cleanup issues). While descriptions add some clarity, the sheer number of closely related tools makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
There is a mix of verb_noun patterns (list_files, find_references, analyze_component) and noun-only patterns (program_summary, variable_xref, node_async_flow, angular_dependency_graph). The naming is readable but inconsistent, with no single convention applied throughout.
Tool Count1/5
103 tools is extreme for any server. The scope is far too broad, with many specialized heuristics that could be consolidated or removed. Even a comprehensive static analysis tool for JavaScript/TypeScript does not need this many separate tools.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of static analysis needs: project loading, symbol resolution, framework-specific analysis, type checking, code quality heuristics, security scanning, and dependency graphs. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cross-file global call graph, no code formatting), but overall the surface is remarkably complete for its analytical purpose.
Average 3.4/5 across 100 of 103 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool performs a read-only analysis, what output format to expect, or any side effects. It only vaguely mentions 'usage' without describing behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but under-specified. It is a single sentence with no redundant words, but it omits essential operational information, making it concise at the expense of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a vague purpose, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality. The schema is simple, but the lack of a clear operation makes the tool unusable as described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the only parameter ('name' with 'Name or path of the loaded project'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a resource ('native Node modules') but lacks an explicit verb indicating the action (e.g., list, analyze, find). It reads as a topic rather than a tool operation and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like node_entry_points or module_dependency_graph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it says nothing about output, read-only behavior, or project loading requirements. It only describes what Svelte components are.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is under-specified and does not justify its length. The sentence does not explain the tool's function, so it wastes the little space it uses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool appears to be a list operation, yet the description gives no information about return format, scope (e.g., entire project), or behavior. It is completely inadequate for a listing tool with no annotations or output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description defines Svelte components as '.svelte files with props (export let), stores and dispatched events' but never states that the tool lists them. The action is only implied by the tool name, and it doesn't differentiate from siblings like analyze_svelte_component.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about project preconditions or when listing would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing about what the tool returns, whether it requires a loaded project, or whether it has side effects. It is a bare phrase with no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence adds no informative value beyond the tool name, making it prematurely terse rather than appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is inadequate for a tool in a large family of Angular inspection tools. It does not explain return semantics, usage context, or how it differs from similar list tools, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, but it is not required to compensate since the schema already documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lists NgModules' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'list_angular_modules', adding no new information about scope, return values, or the specific resource beyond what the name already conveys. It is technically accurate but fails to provide any additional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_angular_components, list_angular_routes, or angular_module_graph. There is no mention of prerequisites such as a loaded project or how this tool fits into workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description discloses no behavior—neither whether it's read-only, what it returns, nor side effects. It merely lists topics, so an agent has no idea what invoking this tool produces.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short fragment, but it is under-specified. It uses few words but sacrifices necessary semantic content, so it's not an efficient complete description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should at least state the action and result. It only lists topics, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool does and what output to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project' (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema suffices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a noun phrase listing specific async topics (await/Promise, .catch, EventEmitter, timers) but lacks an action verb or clear outcome. It vaguely indicates the tool's subject area without distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_event_emitter_leaks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The list of patterns implies a broad analysis, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that env vars are 'read' but does not explain whether it returns names, values, or a summary, nor does it mention any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no redundancy, making it concise. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informational value, though it remains appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and usage context, but it does not. It leaves significant gaps about what the tool produces and how to invoke it effectively, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, and the description adds no additional meaning. The schema handles parameter semantics adequately, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description mentions 'Environment variables read with process.env' but lacks a clear action verb like 'list' or 'get', making the tool's function somewhat ambiguous. It identifies the resource (environment dependencies) but reads more as a topic than a specific operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states appropriate contexts nor references sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only adds the word 'heuristic' to indicate non-exhaustive detection. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, how results are returned, or any limitations or side effects, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. While every word is meaningful, the truncated structure and lack of punctuation make it less clear than it could be; it balances conciseness with under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what a result looks like (e.g., a list of code locations), but it does not. It also omits any mention of prerequisites like a loaded project. While the tool is simple, the missing return-value and context information leaves notable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already covers the only parameter ('name') with a description, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific information. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; there is nothing to penalize or reward beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific resource ('eval / new Function / Function()') and indicates the tool is a heuristic scan, making its purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'finds' and reads more as a noun phrase, so it doesn't fully meet the specificity of a full sentence. It does distinguish from sibling tools focused on other patterns (SQL injection, XSS, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_xss_vectors or find_command_injection. The description does not state any context or prerequisites (e.g., that a project must be loaded), so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what exactly 'structure' means, or what the return format looks like. The description is too vague for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and free of fluff, which is good for conciseness. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification; it reads more like a topic listing than a full description. There is no front-loading of key information beyond the file name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how the structure is presented, or any relevant details. For an agent, this is insufficient to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the specific resource (hooks.server.ts) and the specific hooks covered (handle, handleError, handleFetch). While it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name includes 'list', and the description adds details that distinguish it from sibling tools like list_sveltekit_routes or list_sveltekit_load_actions. It is not a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not mention any specific use cases or conditions under which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the information returned (guards/resolvers per route and their definitions) but does not disclose side effects, whether it is read-only, performance implications, or behavior when the project is not loaded. For an analysis tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense line that lists all relevant guard types and the output's scope. It is front-loaded with the core subject and contains no redundant words. However, it is structured as a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, which slightly reduces clarity, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a specialized Angular analysis) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonably clear picture of what data will be returned. However, it omits details about the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list, a mapping, or a report), and it doesn't mention any dependencies or setup requirements. It is adequate but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('name') with 100% description coverage ('Name or path of the loaded project'). Per guidelines, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. The tool description adds no extra parameter context (e.g., it doesn't mention how 'name' relates to route analysis), so the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's focus on route guards and resolvers, listing all types (canActivate, etc.) and stating where they are defined (classes or functions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_angular_routes by focusing on guards/resolvers, though it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'lists' or 'analyzes'), making it slightly less than a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded project), or situations where other tools like list_angular_routes would be more appropriate. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and subject matter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool analyzes dependency injection relationships, but it does not disclose whether the project must be already loaded, what the output format is (graph, nodes/edges, list), or whether it is read-only. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence (or two fragments) to convey the essential purpose. Every word adds value—'DI dependency graph' immediately communicates the output, and '@Injectable services and who consumes them' clarifies scope. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent complexity (dependency graph generation) and the absence of an output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the graph's structure, how the input project name relates to the analysis, or how the result should be interpreted. Richer context is needed for an AI agent to confidently invoke and process the tool's output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'name' with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter understanding adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as generating a DI dependency graph focused on @Injectable services and their consumers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like angular_module_graph (which focuses on modules) or list_angular_services (which likely just lists services). The lack of an explicit verb is a minor weakness, but the intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the AI to infer usage context from the name and sibling list. There is no explicit comparison to angular_module_graph or list_angular_services, which could be confused with this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that detection is heuristic and the specific pattern being sought, but does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, what output format to expect, or potential false positives. The word 'heuristic' adds some value but is insufficient for understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, communicating the core detection criterion and heuristic nature in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to mention the return value, prerequisites like the project being loaded, or how results are presented. For a find tool with one parameter, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the target (EventEmitter listeners without cleanup pairs) and the heuristic nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_event_listener_leaks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'finds' and is a noun phrase, relying on the tool name for the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., loaded project) or contrast with similar leak-detection tools such as find_event_listener_leaks or find_react_effect_leaks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the heuristic nature ('technical-debt heuristic') without explaining what 'long' means, whether a configurable threshold exists (max_lines is not mentioned), what the output looks like, or if any side effects occur. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It earns a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the tool returns and under what conditions. It only states 'Functions/methods with a long body' without saying that it returns a list, that it applies to the loaded project, how the max_lines threshold works, or that it is a read-only static analysis. This leaves important gaps for a tool that could return varied results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; both parameters have clear descriptions ('Name or path of the loaded project' and 'Body line threshold (default 80)'). The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but since the schema already documents them well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the resource (functions/methods), the condition (long body), and the intent (technical-debt heuristic). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like find_high_complexity (complexity vs. length), though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'finds' and could be more explicit about being a list-returning analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer this over related tools like find_high_complexity, function_metrics, or find_dead_code, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the project being loaded. It is left entirely to the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search is heuristic, which implies non-exact results, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires a loaded project, or what the output format is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler, making it concise and front-loaded with the core concept. However, the brevity sacrifices operational clarity, though for structure it is appropriately lean.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the heuristic works, or prerequisites like having a loaded project, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single 'name' parameter descriptively, and the tool description does not add meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage of the one parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines what magic numbers are and implicitly indicates the tool finds them, distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' and the parenthetical '(config)' adds slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. The description only defines magic numbers and does not mention any contexts where it should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the matching criteria but not the operation itself (e.g., that it scans the loaded project, returns a list, and is read-only). The input parameter mentions 'loaded project', but the description does not clarify behavior if the project is unloaded or what the output structure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key criteria. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, the phrasing is dense and technical, which might require React expertise to fully parse, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not mention what the tool returns, whether it operates on a loaded project or a path, or how it differs from similar analysis tools like find_react_effect_leaks. The criteria are stated, but the tool's actual behavior and return value are not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% since the single 'name' parameter has a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description defines the target pattern (components with non-primitive props without memo() and JSX new values per render), clearly indicating what the tool finds. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'find_react_memo_opportunities' provides the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_react_component by focusing specifically on memoization opportunities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'performance heuristic' implies usage for performance optimization, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. An agent has to infer context from the tool name and sibling list, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states what the tool finds but does not mention return format, whether declarations/imports are included, prerequisites like a loaded project, or what happens if the symbol is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully explain behavior and results. It does not describe return values, edge cases, or how this differs from other reference-finding tools, making it insufficient for a user to confidently invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters, each with clear descriptions. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool finds all references to a symbol in the project, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like find_any_usages or function_callers, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of reference-related sibling tools (e.g., find_any_usages, variable_xref, function_callers), the lack of usage context is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only states that markers are in comments (pending debt), but does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, or that it searches across the loaded project. The behavioral detail is marginally beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, using just a few words, and is front-loaded with the key markers. It is appropriately sized for a simple find tool, though the brevity sacrifices substantive guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature and the parameter schema, the description is partially complete. It does not mention what the tool returns or how the search is scoped within the loaded project, leaving moderate gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'name' is well-described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project.' The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies per the rubric.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names specific markers (TODO, FIXME, HACK, XXX) and states they are in comments, which clearly implies a tool for finding technical-debt markers. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' and does not mention that it operates on the loaded project, so the purpose is clear but not fully articulated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_source or find_any_usages. The description gives no contextual cues for tool selection, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only says 'local call graph', which hints at scope but leaves critical traits undisclosed: whether the graph includes calls to library/external functions, how dynamic dispatch is handled, whether it is bidirectional, and what 'local' exactly means. It also does not describe how the 'function_name' filter modifies the output (e.g., whether the graph is reduced to that function's immediate interactions).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one sentence and front-loads the key concept ('Local call graph'). It earns its place, but it is arguably too terse, providing no usage context or edge-case information. Still, for the purpose of stating what the tool does, it is efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a graph-producing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the graph output looks like, how to interpret edges, or how the 'function_name' filter affects the graph. For an agent to invoke and use this tool correctly, significantly more context is needed, such as whether the graph is directed, whether it is limited to project-local functions, and whether it includes indirect call chains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'function_name' having clear descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already covers parameter semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'shows which functions call which functions' in a 'Local call graph'. This includes a specific verb ('shows') and a clear resource ('call graph') with a scope qualifier ('local'). It is sufficiently distinct from siblings like 'function_callers' (which focus on one function) and 'module_dependency_graph' (which focuses on modules), though it does not explicitly name these alternatives to differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it complements or overlaps with 'function_callers' or 'find_references', nor does it explain preferred scenarios (e.g., project-wide analysis vs. single-function lookup). Without such context, the agent has no basis for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what categories of routing information are returned but omits critical details such as side effects, return format, whether a loaded project is required, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally brief, using a compact list format to convey the key content areas. Every word adds value with no redundancy. While it is a sentence fragment rather than a full sentence, it remains efficiently structured and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what the agent can expect from the results. It lists content categories but does not describe the output shape, how the information is organized, or any usage context. This is insufficient for a tool that returns complex routing structures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' has a schema description ('Name or path of the loaded project') that fully covers its semantics, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly enumerates the specific content covered: Express sub-routers, their mounting, middleware order, and error-handlers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_api_endpoints, though it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'List') in the description. The name supplies the verb, so the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists the output content, with no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or comparison to similar tools. Users must infer usage from the name and general Express knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'cross-file' to indicate a project-wide search, but omits whether the tool returns a list, is read-only, or requires a loaded project. The listed patterns give some insight into search criteria, but output format and side effects remain unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise, using a single fragment to convey the tool's focus, and front-loads the key term 'React contexts'. It avoids fluff and every word contributes to the meaning. However, it is not a full sentence and could be more structured with a leading verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, when to use it among many similar React analysis tools, or how the 'name' parameter relates to the search. It is a minimal scope statement rather than a complete usage guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully covers the single parameter 'name' with a description, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (React contexts) and scope (cross-file), and specifies the exact patterns covered (createContext, providers, consumers). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'finds', making the action implicit from the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on context patterns rather than components or hooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_react_components or find_references. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or any exclusions. It only states the tool's scope without any comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it requires a loaded project, or any side effects. The list of entry-point types gives some insight into detection logic, but behavioral details are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, fitting in a single short phrase without filler. It is front-loaded with the key term 'Project entry points' and lists specific examples, making it easy to scan. However, it is under-specified, lacking a verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not explain return values, usage prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded), or how the entry points are presented. There is no output schema, so the description should compensate but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage for the single 'name' parameter is 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's focus: project entry points, explicitly enumerating package.json scripts, main, listen(), and shebang. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_functions or program_summary, though it omits an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'finds'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states what the graph contains but not the return format, whether it includes transitive dependencies, or any side effects. It also does not clarify that this is a read-only operation or that it requires a loaded project, which is implied by the parameter but not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that provides the core information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key term 'NgModules graph' and efficiently lists the contained elements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the essential purpose and content of the graph, but given no output schema and no annotations, it is somewhat thin. It does not explain how the graph is represented or how it relates to other Angular analysis tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already covers 100% of parameter semantics. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific resource ('NgModules graph') and enumerates its contents ('declarations, imports and providers per module'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'angular_dependency_graph' by focusing specifically on NgModules rather than a broader dependency graph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'angular_dependency_graph' or 'list_angular_modules'. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., loaded project), use cases, or conditions where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by defining the scope (functions and private methods) and the criteria (not referenced locally), but it does not explicitly confirm a read-only operation or describe the output shape, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no filler or redundant words. The key subject is front-loaded, making it easy to scan. However, it is a sentence fragment, which slightly reduces structural completeness but not enough to lower the score further.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of locations) and leaves the phrase 'referenced locally' ambiguous (within the same file vs. project-wide). This significantly limits the agent's ability to correctly anticipate results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'name' parameter with its description 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but it clearly identifies the resource scope ('Functions and private methods') and the qualifying condition ('not referenced locally'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like find_unused_variables. It is more specific than a bare tautology, though an action word like 'Find' or 'List' would strengthen clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_unused_variables or find_code_duplication. It also does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions '(heuristic)' as a caveat, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans the entire project, or how results are presented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main topic and then lists concrete examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description conveys the core topic and a heuristic caveat, but lacks details about return values, scan scope, and prerequisites beyond what the schema implies. As a simple find tool with no output schema or annotations, it is minimally adequate but has gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the single parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, but none is needed given the schema's clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the specific resource (deprecated Node APIs) and lists concrete examples (new Buffer, url.parse, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb, leaving the action to be inferred from the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description only lists the APIs checked, with no context about typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the analysis scope (module-level, top-level) and the criterion (unused in rest of file) but does not disclose whether exported variables are considered used, what 'used' means (read vs referenced), or the output format (names, locations). The description is a definition, not a behavioral specification, leaving important edge cases unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise fragment that directly defines what the tool returns. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key scope. The lack of a verb makes it slightly less polished, but it is efficient and free of redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain return values or behavioral details, but it only defines the topic. It does not state whether results are a list of names, include line numbers, or how exports are treated. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, more context is needed to fully prepare an agent for invoking it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the only parameter 'name' with a description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, but per the baseline, schema coverage is sufficient. No additional parameter nuance is needed for this simple one-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the target: module-level (top-level) variables not used in the rest of the file. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_variables (which lists all variables) and find_dead_code (broader dead code) by specifying scope. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Finds' or 'Lists', making it a definitional fragment rather than a full purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when you need to identify unused top-level variables. It provides the condition (not used in rest of file) but offers no explicit when-not-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded beyond the parameter name), or alternative tools. With many siblings covering similar analyses, explicit guidance would strengthen this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that a project must be loaded, what the return format looks like, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is too terse to provide meaningful transparency beyond the basic metric list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose (metrics per function/method) and mentions filters only as optional, which is efficient and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a medium-complexity tool with no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it names the metrics and filters but omits the return type, the need for a loaded project, and how filter thresholds apply. It is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to resolve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has clear meaning. The description adds limited value by naming the metric types and indicating threshold filters exist, but it does not elaborate on how min_lines and min_complexity behave or interact beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool provides metrics per function/method (cyclomatic complexity, body lines, parameters) and mentions optional threshold filters. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_functions (which likely just lists names) and find_high_complexity (which focuses on one metric), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_high_complexity, find_long_functions, or inspect_function. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It scopes the tool to routes defined with Routes/RouterModule and gives the mapping format, but does not disclose whether child/lazy-loaded routes, redirects, or guards are handled, nor whether it is read-only or has any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation with one parameter, and the description gives a clear indication of the output structure (path -> component/loadChildren). However, with no output schema, it omits details about nested routes, route configuration options, or limitations, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (name) with a clear description 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists Angular routes defined with Routes/RouterModule, specifying the path-to-component mapping. It is specific and uses a clear verb+resource pattern, but does not explicitly differentiate from other Angular listing tools like list_angular_components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other Angular introspection tools. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only enumerates topics (revalidate, generateStaticParams, etc.) and does not state what the tool actually does—whether it scans the project, returns code locations, or produces a report. No information is given about side effects, output format, or whether it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, fitting in one line, and front-loads the core topic via a colon. It avoids unnecessary words, but it reads more like a fragment than a complete sentence and lacks an action verb, which slightly reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of data fetching constructs. It does not explain what results look like, how they are presented, or any prerequisites beyond the 'name' parameter. Sibling tools may hint at purpose, but the description itself is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a complete description for the single parameter 'name' (Name or path of the loaded project), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the domain: data fetching, ISR, and cache in the Next.js app router, listing specific features. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Find', leaving the action to be inferred from the tool name. It does distinguish from sibling tools by focusing on data fetching rather than routes or components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied but not explicitly stated. The description suggests this tool is relevant when investigating data fetching patterns in Next.js, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative sibling tools like list_next_routes or list_next_api_routes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does specify exactly which file patterns are considered routes, which is a useful constraint. However, it doesn't state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of file paths), whether it requires a previously loaded project, or any side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that immediately states the scope ('Next.js routes') and provides the specific glob patterns. There is no wasted verbiage, and the structure is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core content (route patterns) but omits behavioral details like return format and prerequisites. It's adequate for basic understanding but leaves some gaps, so it's not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'name' parameter as 'Name or path of the loaded project' with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, but the schema handles it, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (Next.js routes) and precisely defines the two router patterns (app/**/page.tsx and pages/*.tsx), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_next_api_routes. However, the action verb 'list' appears only in the tool name, not in the description itself, so it's clear but not as explicit as it could be.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention that this is for page routes specifically, while list_next_api_routes is for API routes, nor does it indicate any prerequisites such as the project being loaded. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the description and tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the analysis is a heuristic and enumerates the classification categories, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, but it does not mention limitations, accuracy expectations, possible side effects, or how the classification handles edge cases (e.g., components with both OnPush and manual CD).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that packs the key information into a compact structure. It avoids unnecessary words, though it is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb-led sentence, which slightly impacts readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple one-parameter interface and no output schema, the description explains what is computed (CD strategies per component) but does not specify the return format (e.g., list of components with strategy labels) or the scope (all components in the project?). This is a notable gap for an analysis tool expected to be invoked programmatically.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema with 'Name or path of the loaded project', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema already handles it, but no extra value is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it identifies change detection strategies per component, listing the specific categories (no OnPush, manual CD via detectChanges/markForCheck/detach/reattach, and OnPush). This makes the tool's focus distinct from sibling analysis tools like analyze_angular_component, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'find' or 'list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios (e.g., identifying components that may benefit from OnPush) that would help an agent choose this tool among Angular analysis siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the detection is 'heuristic' and lists what types of secrets are covered, which adds some value. However, it does not mention false positives, limitations, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects—leaving notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise line that effectively conveys the essence of the tool. It is front-loaded with the core topic and includes specific examples without any filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a security scanner with no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage guidance, limitations, and behavioral context, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the 'name' parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it does not go beyond the structured information. The baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose as detecting hardcoded secrets and lists specific categories (keys, passwords, tokens, URLs with credentials, private keys, AWS keys). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'finds' or 'scans', the tool name and the enumerative definition make the purpose clear and distinguish it from sibling security scanners.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of suitable contexts, exclusions, or competing tools. The intended use is only implied by the description, providing no explicit decision support for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does note the heuristic nature with 'Possible' and the specific detection pattern, which adds some transparency. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, return format, or any other behavioral nuances beyond the heuristic flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and detection mechanism, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lacks information about the output format (e.g., list of locations), the need for the project to be loaded, or any limitations. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the tool's execution context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'name' as 'Name or path of the loaded project', giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function: detecting possible SQL injection via query/execute calls with interpolated template literals or string concatenation. It distinguishes this from sibling vulnerability scanners like find_command_injection and find_xss_vectors by specifying SQL injection specifically. The lack of an explicit verb like 'detect' is mitigated by the tool name, so the purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_xss_vectors or find_command_injection. It also does not mention prerequisites like needing a loaded project, which would be important for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the analysis is heuristic and lists the specific patterns checked (addEventListener, setInterval, subscribe), which is useful. However, it does not indicate read-only nature, output format, or potential false positives beyond the word 'heuristic'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact clause that front-loads the key pattern (onMount) and specifies the resource types. Every word contributes meaning, with no wasted text. It could be considered under-specified but is still concise and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description would ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of affected components/locations), but it does not. It also doesn't mention scope or limitations beyond 'heuristic'. The core detection logic is described, which is sufficient for a simple find tool, but additional context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is fully documented in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the tool as a Svelte-specific static analysis that detects onMount callbacks registering listeners/timers/subscriptions without cleanup in onDestroy. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_react_effect_leaks or find_event_listener_leaks. However, it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_react_effect_leaks or find_event_listener_leaks. The Svelte-specific pattern and the term 'heuristic' imply usage context but do not state it directly. There are no exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the heuristic uses TypeScript's structural typing, meaning the result is not based on explicit `implements` clauses alone. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, output format, or limitations beyond the heuristic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that conveys the core purpose and a heuristic caveat. It is concise with no filler, though the noun-phrase structure could be improved to a verb-led instruction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is returned and the key heuristic, but does not explain how results are presented or when this analysis is useful. Sibling tools provide a broad context, but the description itself lacks completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter `name` with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'). The description adds no extra semantic value about how the parameter affects the search, but the schema already provides adequate meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's output: interfaces whose methods have no explicit class implementation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_check_implementations by emphasizing the heuristic nature ('no class explicitly implements'), though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the parenthetical about TypeScript's structural typing, which implies a use case but does not state scenarios or exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools like find_check_implementations or find_any_usages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes the term 'heuristic', which honestly signals that results are approximate, providing some transparency. However, with no annotations, this single qualifier is insufficient. The tool does not disclose potential false positives/negatives, whether it respects configured paths, or any runtime considerations, leaving most behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core functionality and the heuristic caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the result type (a list of unused dependencies) and the heuristic nature. It could mention that it operates on the currently loaded project, but the schema and tool context make that implicit. Overall, it is nearly complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a clear description for 'name'. The tool description reinforces that 'name' refers to the loaded project, which adds a small amount of context. However, the description does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description precisely states what the tool does: it lists package.json dependencies not imported in any file. It clearly identifies the resource (package.json dependencies) and differentiates from sibling tools like find_unused_variables or find_dead_code, which target code-level unused items.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context about scenarios where it should be preferred or avoided. The description is purely definitional and leaves the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only describes the data sources. It does not explicitly state this is a read-only listing, any prerequisites, side effects, or return format. The parameter description hints at a loaded project, but that is from the schema, not the tool description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise clause with no redundant words. It efficiently packs the route sources and dynamic/catch-all details into one line, though it could be slightly more explicit with a verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter, but without an output schema, the description should clarify the return value or any behavioral preconditions. It explains what routes are covered but not the output format or that it requires a loaded project (only implied by the schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a clear description for the name parameter (100% coverage), and the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource scope: routes from pages/ and server/api, including dynamic params and catch-all. It distinguishes from siblings like list_nuxt_server_api by combining both sources, but lacks an explicit verb in the description itself, relying on the tool name for the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need routes from both pages and server/api, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_nuxt_server_api or list_nuxt_page_meta, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the resource and that HTTP method is included, but does not disclose return format, side effects, or whether the project must be loaded. This is minimal for a tool with no structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single noun phrase with no filler, immediately conveying the target directories and included information. It is appropriately brief, though its terseness borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the expected result. It mentions routes with HTTP method but does not specify the shape of the output (e.g., array of objects). This is adequate for a simple list but leaves structural ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for 'name' is clear ('Name or path of the loaded project'), covering 100% of the parameter. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing routes under server/api and server/routes, and it mentions HTTP method, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nuxt_pages and list_api_endpoints. The specific resource scope is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, and there is no comparison to other route-listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but does not disclose side effects such as whether unsaved state is lost, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it affects other tools. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core functionality efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, but as a state-changing operation without annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not mention what happens after unloading, whether the project can be reloaded, or any impact on dependent tools. Given the sibling context of load/refresh, a bit more context would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'name' with a clear description, so the tool description does not need to add much. However, the description does not clarify the exact format expected (e.g., project name as displayed in list_loaded_projects vs a path), so it provides no added meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'unloads' with the resource 'project from memory', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_js_project and refresh_js_project. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives like refresh_js_project or list_loaded_projects. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the project being currently loaded, or situations where unloading is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific hooks covered and the output details (initial value, bindings), which helps the agent understand the result. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or describe any limitations such as component scope or project-loading requirements, though these are implied by the name and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'State inventory per component:' followed by a colon and specifics. Every word adds value, and it is sized appropriately for the tool's complexity. No unnecessary details or repetition of schema content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of the result: state hooks with initial values and bindings. However, it does not specify the result shape (e.g., grouping, file paths) or whether it covers all components vs. a single component, and it relies on the schema to indicate that the project must be loaded. For a one-parameter tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter, only indirectly referencing the project scope through 'per component'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces a state inventory per component, listing specific React hooks (useState, useReducer, useRef, useSyncExternalStore) with initial values and bindings. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_react_component' or 'list_react_hooks_deps' by focusing on state hooks. The lack of an explicit verb (e.g., 'analyzes') is minor, as the noun phrase effectively communicates the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as list_react_context or analyze_react_component. It only describes what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be selected. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what is analyzed but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires a loaded project (though the 'name' parameter hints at it), or what side effects or output format to expect. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably performs static analysis.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads 'In-depth analysis' and efficiently lists the covered aspects. Every term adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex, covering eight distinct Svelte features, but the description offers only a list of topics. Without an output schema, it should say what the analysis returns, and it also omits prerequisites like project loading. The list provides some context but not enough for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'name' and 'file' described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, format, or constraints, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'In-depth analysis of a Svelte component' and enumerates specific aspects (props, reactivity, stores, context, lifecycle, bindings, snippets, dispatched events). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_svelte_components or analyze_vue_component. However, the verb 'analysis' is somewhat generic, and it does not specify the exact output, so 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for thorough Svelte component inspection but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as list_svelte_components or analyze_react_component. It lacks any exclusions or comparison to other tools, so the guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the detection is 'heuristic' and lists the specific patterns checked, which gives some insight into scope and potential false positives. However, it does not mention whether the tool scans source files, the nature of results, or any side effects, limiting behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core concept and lists specific details without verbosity. Every word contributes to clarity, achieving excellent conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single-parameter schema, lack of output schema, and sibling context of static analysis tools, the description gives a reasonable but incomplete picture. It explains what the tool detects but omits what the output looks like, how results are returned, or any usage context. It is adequate for a simple heuristic search tool but leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: the single 'name' parameter is described as 'Name or path of the loaded project' in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning or usage detail for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already carries the weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines what the tool detects: insecure HTTP patterns (http://, ws://, cookies without Secure/HttpOnly). Though it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'find_insecure_http' supplies the action, and the description distinguishes it from sibling security tools by specifying the exact heuristic coverage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like find_xss_vectors or find_sql_injection. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the bidirectional nature of the hierarchy (extends/implements and who extends/implements it), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, error handling, or whether the hierarchy is transitive, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Hierarchy of a type') and expands on it with the bidirectional detail. It contains no filler, fluff, or repetitive information, making it an excellent example of concise writing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two scalar params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality but leaves out some contextual details that would help an agent: it doesn't explicitly state that a project must be loaded (though the schema hints at it), nor what happens if the type is not found. With no output schema, a bit more explanation of the returned structure would improve the completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters ('name' and 'type_name') are adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra credit is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides a type's hierarchy, specifically what it extends/implements and who extends/implements it. This is a specific verb+resource with bidirectional scope, distinguishing it from simple type listing or single-direction reference tools. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'resolve_type', but the focus on hierarchy is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or contrast with similar tools like 'find_references' or 'resolve_type'. The context is only implied by the tool's name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It only states that it lists .vue files, giving no indication of return format, whether paths are relative or absolute, or whether it scans recursively. It does not mention any side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that states the operation and the resource. It is appropriately concise with no redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description only implies the return is a list of .vue files. It doesn't specify nuances like subdirectory traversal or path format, and it doesn't differentiate its use from the related analyze_vue_component tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project.' The description adds no additional meaning to this parameter beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists .vue files, with a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('.vue files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files and list_react_components by specifying the Vue file type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool relative to alternatives like analyze_vue_component or list_files. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the project to be loaded, aside from what's in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The note that the tool is 'Deterministic (ts-morph)' adds useful behavioral context about the static-analysis approach and reproducibility. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose side effects, prerequisites like needing a loaded project, or input/output side effects, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently packs the tool's purpose and a list of analysis categories, plus the deterministic note. It has no filler or redundant statements, though the dense list could arguably be structured more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does not explain the return value shape, which is a notable gap for an analysis tool. It does enumerate what is analyzed, suggesting the output likely contains those elements, and the parameters are clear, but prerequisites and result format are left to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters in the schema are described at 100% coverage: 'Relative path to the component .tsx/.jsx file' and 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The tool description does not add further parameter details, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the tool performs in-depth analysis of a React component and enumerates the exact types of information it extracts (typed props, hooks with arguments, consumed contexts, custom hooks, early returns, memo/forwardRef). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling React analysis tools like analyze_react_state or find_react_memo_opportunities, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in-depth analysis' implies this tool is for comprehensive React component investigation, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus sibling tools such as analyze_react_state or list_react_hooks_deps. It does not list alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, making usage guidance only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether a project must be loaded, the output format, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the verb and resource without any fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the core function. While it could mention that the project must be loaded and that it returns all @Injectable-decorated classes, the schema already hints at the project requirement and the tool's nature makes the return type predictable (a list of services). Overall, it is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'name' parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' and a clear resource '@Injectable services', which unambiguously identifies it as a tool for enumerating Angular injectable services. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_angular_components and list_angular_routes by targeting a distinct resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 context, prerequisites (e.g., loaded project), or point to any sibling tools for other resource types. The usage is only implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core detection capability without explaining what 'detects' means in terms of output format, potential limitations, or whether the project must be loaded. No side effects, error conditions, or scope details are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource upfront. It is efficient and well-structured, earning full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not describe the return value or result format, making it difficult for an agent to know what to expect. It also lacks guidance on interaction with loaded projects and how it relates to similar sibling tools. The description is too minimal for the tool's complexity and sibling differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning or constraints about how the parameter is used in detection. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool detects HTTP endpoints and specifies supported frameworks (Express, Fastify, Koa), which distinguishes it from framework-specific siblings like list_express_routers and analyze_api_endpoint. The verb 'Detects' is specific and directly tied to the tool's name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Express/Fastify/Koa projects by listing these frameworks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_api_endpoint or framework-specific route listers. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description conveys that the tool extracts per-page definePageMeta with specific fields, but it does not state whether pages without meta are included, the output format, or that it is a read-only operation. The 'list' action implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicitly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact, information-dense fragment that lists the relevant metadata fields without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it could be structured as a full sentence to improve formality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and key fields. However, it omits practical details such as whether the tool returns all pages or only those with definePageMeta, and what the output structure looks like. These gaps limit completeness for a tool that is otherwise straightforward.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, and does not reference the parameter at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly indicates that the tool involves definePageMeta per page and enumerates the specific fields (layout, middleware, title, validate, pageTransition, name). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_nuxt_pages, which focus on page discovery. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'display', relying on the tool name to convey the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the Nuxt-specific scope and the enumerated meta fields, which separates it from other Nuxt analysis tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like list_nuxt_pages or analyze_vue_component, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It states what is returned (components, exports, hooks) but omits critical behavioral details such as whether scanning is recursive, whether a loaded project is required, or what the exact output structure looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key concept ('React components') and immediately conveys the core output. It is efficient and has no filler, though it could provide more detail without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential output categories but does not specify the return format or mention that the project must be loaded first. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity, especially for an agent comparing it with similar list tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies what the tool does: lists React components, defined as .tsx/.jsx files with JSX, and includes exports and used hooks. It is specific to React, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vue_components or list_angular_components, and its focus on exports/hooks separates it from list_react_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (to get React components with their exports and hooks) but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like analyze_react_component or list_react_files. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so it relies on inference from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior details (resolves imports/requires, detects cycles, includes importer-less modules), but does not mention read-only nature, prerequisites, or performance characteristics. It is more than a bare repackaging of the name but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's output and key features. No redundant words or filler, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter input and no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating what results to expect: resolved files, cycle detection, and importer-less modules. It doesn't specify output format, but for the complexity level it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name', described as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool produces a dependency graph between project modules, resolving relative imports/requires to files. It also highlights cycle detection and modules without importers, which distinguishes it from function-level graph tools like function_call_graph.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as angular_dependency_graph, angular_module_graph, or function_call_graph. The intended context is implied (project module dependencies) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'Shows' implies a read-only operation, but no other behavioral details are disclosed, such as requiring a loaded project or the format of the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose. It could optionally mention return format or examples, but this is not necessary for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single 'name' parameter with the description 'Name or path of the loaded project', providing 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows auto-imports in Nuxt, specifically Vue composables and Nuxt utilities. It uses a specific verb ('Shows') and resource, but does not explicitly mention how it differs from sibling tools like list_nuxt_composables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_nuxt_composables. The description only says what it shows, not when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'shows the content' without detailing output format, whether it returns raw text, handles parse errors, or requires a loaded project (though the schema hints at that). It adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple read-only tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one fully documented parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention output format or that it returns the raw file content, but for a trivial read operation the description plus schema cover the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'name' described as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description adds nothing extra about parameters, but the schema already fully documents them, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool shows the content of nuxt.config.ts, a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that analyze other Nuxt aspects (pages, composables, etc.) by focusing specifically on the config file content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions specific contexts nor excludes any sibling tools. For a simple read tool this might be obvious, but it fails to provide any explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: case-insensitivity and that it searches all project files. However, it does not mention whether the search is exact-substring, supports regex, or any performance implications. For a read-only search operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and key qualifiers. Every element (searches, text, code, all project files, case-insensitive) adds value, with no wasted words or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior: scope, case-sensitivity, and the text being searched. It does not describe the return format, but that is not explicitly required in the absence of an output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for a basic tool, though it could mention whether only source code files are searched or all project files.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions ('Name or path of the loaded project' and 'Text to search'), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Searches') and clearly identifies the resource ('the code of all project files') and a key qualifier ('case-insensitive'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_references or find_any_usages, but its broad text-search scope across all files is distinct enough to be clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 similar search tools as alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. A user must infer that this is for generic text searches rather than symbol-specific lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (getPreEmitDiagnostics via ts-morph) and output grouping by file, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., the project must be loaded), read-only nature, or potential performance implications, which would be useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and key implementation detail in a structured way. No wasted words, though the colon-heavy construction might be slightly less readable than a straightforward imperative sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of two parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the nature of the output but omits details like return format, default for max_diagnostics, and the requirement that the project be loaded first. These are important gaps for a tool that depends on project state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning for the parameters 'name' or 'max_diagnostics', relying entirely on the schema descriptions. It does clarify the output grouping, which indirectly informs what the name parameter refers to, but this is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's output: real type errors from TypeChecker diagnostics, grouped by file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_unchecked_errors by specifying 'Real type errors' and the ts-morph implementation. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the tool name 'typecheck_project' to convey the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when type error information is needed, and the mention of 'getPreEmitDiagnostics' suggests it is for compile-time diagnostics. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios, nor does it mention alternatives among the extensive sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states what is analyzed but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, prerequisites like a loaded project, error behavior, or the output format. The brief list of aspects is useful but insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists specific analysis dimensions. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema, the description gives a good sense of scope but omits details about the return structure or how results are presented. Given the tool's complexity (multiple aspects), it could benefit from a brief note on output format, but the listed dimensions provide adequate context for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both 'file' and 'name' having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents them adequately. Baseline 3 applies since the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Analyzes' with a clear resource 'a component' and enumerates the exact aspects covered (@Input/@Output, providers, constructor DI, lifecycle hooks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_angular_components (listing) or angular_template_analysis (template-focused).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to inspect Angular component metadata and dependency injection, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., angular_template_analysis) or any exclusions. The context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analysis scope and mentions the use of @angular/compiler, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires a loaded project, or how errors are handled. Some behavioral context is added, but key aspects remain undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the primary purpose and scope without unnecessary filler. The list of features is dense but remains concise and information-dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are structured. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., loading the project) and any edge-case behavior. For a tool analyzing numerous template constructs, this is a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers both parameters (file and name) with 100% description coverage, already providing their meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics; it focuses entirely on the analysis scope rather than the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool performs 'Template binding analysis' and enumerates specific aspects it covers (inputs, outputs, interpolations, pipes, structural directives, and references to identifiers without a class member). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_angular_component or list_angular_components.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for analyzing template bindings, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving usage inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that it is heuristic and specifies the exact patterns detected, which adds value beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it leaves out other behavioral aspects such as return format, false positive propensity, or scope limitations beyond 'same scope'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence with a clear pattern after the colon. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and effectively explains the tool's purpose in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a heuristic static analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the core detection logic but omits context like what the tool returns, typical use cases, or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive, especially given many related sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema ('Name or path of the loaded project'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding event listeners and timers without cleanup, with specific examples (addEventListener/setInterval vs removeEventListener/clearInterval). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_react_effect_leaks or find_event_emitter_leaks by focusing on plain DOM listeners and timers in the same scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for plain JavaScript/TypeScript and not framework-specific, nor does it warn about heuristic limitations or suggest when to use other leak-detection tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only defines the code pattern and does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., file locations), or any side effects. This leaves the agent without key behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that defines the tool's target with an example and the heuristic label. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not mention what the tool returns or any operational context beyond the purpose. The lack of output schema increases the need for that information, but the tool's low complexity keeps this at a baseline level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes the only parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but it does not need to since the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: finding non-null assertions (`expr!`). It also explains the concept and labels it as a type-debt heuristic, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unsafe_type_casts or find_ts_ignores.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'type-debt heuristic' implies a use case (identifying type-debt code), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making the usage context only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by mentioning the heuristic nature and listing concrete patterns (addEventListener/setInterval/.subscribe) and the cleanup criterion. However, it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., read-only), the format of the return value, or limitations beyond 'heuristic', which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core resource ('useEffect') and provides specific examples and the heuristic caveat. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's focus.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description is the only source for lifecycle and return behavior. It explains what the tool detects (effects lacking cleanup) but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of locations, diagnostics), nor does it mention that it operates on an already loaded project. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of return-value and prerequisite information leaves the description incomplete for a detection tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter, 'name', with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameter, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's purpose: finding React useEffect hooks that register listeners/timers/subscriptions without cleanup. It names the specific resource (useEffect) and the condition (lack of return cleanup), and the context of React is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_svelte_effect_leaks and find_event_listener_leaks, which target different frameworks or event types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as find_event_listener_leaks or find_react_memo_opportunities. It neither states in which scenarios this tool is appropriate nor mentions exclusions or alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, leaving the agent to infer when to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only enumerates the suppressors and labels them as type debt; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what prerequisites exist (e.g., loaded project), or what output format to expect. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately specifies the resource and the type-debt angle. Every word adds value, and it is well front-loaded with the key term 'Type suppressors'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter search tool, the description is functional but minimal. It lacks output expectations (e.g., list of locations, counts) and any behavioral details. Given no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context would be warranted, but the low complexity keeps it at a middling score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' (name/path of loaded project), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: finding TypeScript type suppression directives (@ts-ignore, @ts-nocheck, @ts-expect-error). The verb 'find' in the tool name plus the concrete resource enumeration makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unchecked_errors or typecheck_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for identifying 'type debt' (suppressions) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not compare with related tools such as find_unchecked_errors or find_dead_code, leaving the agent to infer context from the parenthetical phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add useful context by noting the heuristic nature and scope limitation ('in the same scope'), but it omits details like whether it requires a loaded project, what the output looks like, or how it handles nested scopes. This is a moderate level of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the key subjects and qualifiers. It is efficient and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains its core function and caveat. However, it lacks guidance on expected return shape or when to apply it, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding between this and similar leak-detection tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter ('name') with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage (100%) means the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('find') and resource ('Streams/connections/http.request') and adds a scoping detail ('in the same scope'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling find_* tools like find_event_emitter_leaks or find_sql_injection, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the tool name itself, which implies usage for detecting resource leaks, but this is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'heuristic' which hints at approximation, but it does not explain prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded), return behavior, limitations, or how results are structured. The behavioral trait is only partially disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-param tool, the description covers the core function adequately. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete by mentioning return format or any required project setup. It is minimally sufficient but leaves some context gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name', and the schema already provides a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('find') and clearly defines the resource: exported functions/methods lacking return types or unannotated parameters. It also adds the heuristic framing (public API without types), which distinguishes it from other function-related tools like list_functions or find_dead_code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case (auditing public API type coverage) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_functions or typecheck_project. There are no clear usage exclusions or context cues, so the guidance is present but not overt.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a key detail about requiring parentheses (excluding non-call references), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention output format, whether the project must be loaded, or how dynamic calls are handled—leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the essential purpose without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool this is acceptable, but it's not fully complete. It fails to explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings (find_references, function_call_graph) and doesn't describe return values or prerequisites, leaving an agent to guess at some usage aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters (name and symbol) with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply restating that symbol is the function name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (Finds) and the resource (calls to a function), with a useful parenthetical clarifying that it targets invocations with parentheses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_references, which likely cover all references, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call when you want to locate actual call sites of a function. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like find_references or function_call_graph, nor exclusions for non-parenthesized usages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the path-suffix resolution mechanism, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no file matches, or whether multiple matches are possible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. Key information (returns content, path suffix matching) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers core purpose and resolution behavior. However, the absence of annotations and an output schema leaves gaps around return format, error cases, and usage context, making it minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (name and rel_path). The description adds the valuable detail that rel_path is matched as a suffix, which clarifies the semantics of a 'partial file path' beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (returns content) and the resource (a project file), and adds a distinguishing mechanism: resolution by matching a path suffix. This sets it apart from sibling tools like list_files or search_source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer applicability based on the name and behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'Inspects' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it is non-mutating, nor does it mention preconditions (e.g., a loaded project), return format, or potential side effects. The description adds only the list of inspected components, providing minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the exact scope of inspection. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable outline of what is inspected, but it omits crucial context such as when to use the tool, whether it requires a loaded project, or what the return structure looks like. This leaves the agent with some ambiguity, though the simple nature of the tool mitigates the impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents both parameters with descriptions ('Name or path of the loaded project' and 'Class name'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, which aligns with the baseline expectation that the schema is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Inspects' and identifies the resource as 'a class', then enumerates the class components (decorators, extends/implements, fields, methods, constructor). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_function or get_type_hierarchy, which focus on other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests usage when one needs to inspect class-level details, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternative tools such as get_type_hierarchy or list_ts_types. The absence of any exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations leaves the decision to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the directory convention and the file types considered routes, which is useful. However, it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., route paths, file paths), whether it scans recursively, or any read-only guarantees, leaving uncertainty about its output behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the relevant file types. Every element is informative, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify the return format and coverage scope, but it does not. It mentions the key file types but omits details like dynamic segments, route groups, or whether the listing includes all levels of nesting. This is not fully complete for an unannotated list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides a full description of the 'name' parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project'), and the tool description adds nothing about parameters. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing SvelteKit routes based on the src/routes directory convention, enumerating the specific file types included. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_sveltekit_load_actions or list_nuxt_pages by focusing on SvelteKit route files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It implies usage for SvelteKit projects, but there is no comparison to other route-listing tools or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria beyond the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic listing behavior but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded via load_js_project), return format, or any side effects. Significant behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, every word contributes. It is clear and front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but lacks context about the loaded project prerequisite and how it fits with sibling listing tools. With no output schema, the agent may need more detail on the returned structure, though the description does note 'with their members'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema ('Name or path of the loaded project'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' and enumerates the exact resource types (interfaces, type aliases, enums, classes) with the detail 'with their members', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_functions and list_variables.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by enumerating the type kinds, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against sibling tools like list_functions or list_variables. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the content scope (framework, files, functions, types, variables, capabilities), which gives useful context about what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions. The disclosure is limited to the summary contents.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Executive summary') and uses a colon to efficiently list the covered items. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists what the summary includes, which is helpful. However, it does not indicate the output format (e.g., markdown, structured object) or clarify how it aggregates information vs. the many sibling listing tools. Some additional context on return shape and relationship to load state would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already sufficiently documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides an executive summary of a loaded project and enumerates the scope (framework, files, functions, types, variables, capabilities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., list_functions, list_files). However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'returns' or 'generates', leaving the action slightly implicit, and it could more sharply contrast with the list-oriented siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'of a loaded project' implies the tool should be used after a project has been loaded, and the summary nature suggests it is for a high-level overview. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, nor does it name alternatives or say when not to use it. Guidance is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the semantic classification scheme but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what prerequisites exist (e.g., loaded project), or how errors are handled. It lacks explicit transparency about safety and operational behavior beyond the core purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishing trait. Every phrase contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the core functionality well for a 2-parameter tool, but it leaves gaps: no output schema, no usage context or alternatives, and no details about edge cases (e.g., undefined variables, multiple matches). It is adequate for a straightforward analysis but not fully complete given the lack of other structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('name' and 'symbol') are already documented. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, but it reinforces 'variable' as the symbol. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Data-flow cross-reference of a variable' with specific sub-actions (defined, read, written) and a distinct semantic classification via ts-morph. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_references or list_variables by emphasizing data-flow classification rather than simple reference listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for analyzing variable definitions/reads/writes, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like find_references, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., project must be loaded). The context is clear enough to infer intent, but guidance is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyzes', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explain whether it requires a loaded project, how it handles missing files, what counts as 'used' (e.g., in expressions vs. event handlers), or give any output details. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and uses no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for tool selection but lacks details about return values and edge cases, especially since there is no output schema. For an analysis tool, it would be helpful to know whether the result is a list of variable names, usages, or a structured report. Parameters are fully documented, but the overall context is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('file' and 'name') already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') and clearly identifies the resource (script variables in the <template> of a .vue component), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from broader siblings like analyze_vue_component and related template checks like find_vue_template_undefined by focusing on bindings rather than undefined references or general analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use case is implied: when you need to know which script variables appear in the template. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as a loaded project, though the parameter description hints at it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful criteria ('empty catch blocks, console-only, or those that discard the error without binding or re-throw') and flags it as heuristic, but it does not mention false-positive risk, return format, or whether the operation is purely read-only. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single, well-structured sentence with a colon-led definition and semicolon-separated categories. Every word adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and matching criteria. It does not describe return values or usage context, but given the sibling suite context and the clear pattern definition, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter information, but because the schema already covers it completely, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb plus resource ('find silent catches') and explicitly defines the three detection categories: empty catch blocks, console-only catches, and catches that discard the error without binding or re-throwing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_unchecked_errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a diagnostic search tool but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as find_unchecked_errors or find_dead_code. It states what it finds but not when it should be preferred or when it is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the search is heuristic and lists exact patterns, which adds useful context about coverage. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, side effects, or output format, though these are likely implied by the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific patterns without any fluff. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter analysis tool with complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and enumerates patterns. It could mention return values or prerequisites, but the schema already indicates the project must be loaded, so it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter completely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function by enumerating specific XSS sink patterns across Vue, Svelte, React, and DOM, which distinguishes it from sibling security tools. The action verb 'find' is carried by the tool name rather than the description, so it loses a point for lacking an explicit verb in the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The framework list implies the tool is for auditing XSS vulnerabilities in projects using those frameworks, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not exclude other security tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the pattern list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention side effects, preconditions like requiring a loaded project, or limitations. It only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits beyond the literal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word carries meaning, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core function and key output fields. It lacks behavioral details but is otherwise adequate, especially since the parameter description already handles preconditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter 'name' with 'Name or path of the loaded project', and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Lists' and the specific resource 'Angular components (@Component)', adding output fields 'selector and standalone'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_angular_modules or analyze_angular_component.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as list_angular_standalone_components or analyze_angular_component. The context is clear but exclusions are missing, making usage implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the output content (signature, file, line) and scope ('all functions and class methods'), but does not mention safety, error handling, or requirements like a loaded project.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Lists' and clear modifiers. No filler words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main output fields and scope. It omits details like nested function inclusion or parameter usage, but the schema fills the parameter gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter details, but the schema already documents it, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: listing all functions and class methods, with specific output details (signature, file, line). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_variables and inspect_function by scope and content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without explicit selection cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is listed, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project), return format, or any filtering/grouping behavior. This is a minimal statement with no added behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no filler or redundant information. It is highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, straightforward list operation), the description is largely adequate. It clearly communicates the scope of the list, though it does not describe the output structure, which would be helpful but not critical for this tool type.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'name' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema fields, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Nuxt plugins and middleware', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list pages, composables, server APIs, etc. This is a clear statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to see Nuxt plugins and middleware, but it provides no explicit context or exclusions relative to sibling tools. No guidance on when to prefer this over list_nuxt_pages or other Nuxt-specific list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the read-only operation (lists files) and the output includes line counts, but it does not disclose whether the project must be loaded, how paths are formatted, or if results are sorted. Still, for a simple list tool, the basic behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core functionality (file extensions and line count). It lacks explicit mention of the loading prerequisite, but the schema's parameter description implies the project is loaded. Without an output schema, the return format is not fully specified, yet the description is sufficient for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'name' parameter described as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond referencing 'project', so it does not enhance the parameter semantics beyond the schema's baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource: '.tsx/.jsx/.svelte files' and adds the relevant detail of 'line count'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_files' (generic) and 'list_react_components' (components, not files).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 list_files, list_react_components, or any other sibling, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit 'project' context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope (module-level) and the output details (type and line), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations, such as requiring a loaded project, error behavior, or whether local variables are excluded (only top-level implied). This is moderate transparency for a simple read-only listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Lists module-level variables') and appends the key output details ('with type and line'). There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core question of what it does and what information it returns. However, it lacks explicit mention of the prerequisite that a project must be loaded (though implied by the parameter description) and does not describe the return structure. Given the low complexity, this is still reasonably complete, but not perfect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the 'name' parameter is clear ('Name or path of the loaded project') and covers it fully, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter, such as how it might constrain the results, so it neither improves nor detracts from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists variables, specifies the scope as 'module-level (top-level)', and mentions the output includes type and line. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_functions and list_ts_types, which target different code elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for listing variables, there is no mention of when to prefer this over related tools like variable_xref or find_unused_variables, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says what the tool does, but does not disclose whether the result is a location, code snippet, or symbol kind; nor does it mention behavior for unresolvable symbols. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for such a read-only lookup.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's core function and the supported definition types. Every word adds value, with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the key input concepts and the expected definition kinds. However, it could be slightly more complete by hinting at what the returned definition contains (e.g., file/line), but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and clear schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both 'name' and 'symbol', so the schema already clearly documents the parameters. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's existing descriptions, resulting in baseline value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('resolves') and resource ('symbol to its definition'), and enumerates supported definition kinds (function, type alias, interface, class, enum). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_references (usages) and inspect_function (detailed inspection).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for finding a symbol's definition, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of related tools like get_type_hierarchy or find_references. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of analysis (props, emits, etc.) but does not state that it is a read-only operation, whether it requires a loaded project beyond the name parameter, or any potential side effects/limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and the list of analyzed aspects is useful without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not indicate the structure of the analysis results, which would be helpful given the tool analyzes multiple aspects. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both `name` and `file`. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Analyzes' with the resource '.vue component' and enumerates the specific aspects (props, emits, slots, composables, reactive state, provide/inject), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vue_components or vue_template_binding_analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to analyze a .vue component but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools (e.g., vue_template_binding_analysis for template bindings, find_vue_provide_inject for provide/inject). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the detection is heuristic and defines the matching rule, but it omits limitations, thresholds (e.g., minimum sequence length), and whether it scans the entire project. Basic transparency, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core concept. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place with concrete details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't hint at the return value or output format (e.g., list of locations), which is a notable gap for an analysis tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema handles semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context, staying at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies what the tool does: detects duplicated code blocks. It defines the exact heuristic criteria ('sequences of identical lines in ≥2 functions') and even labels it 'copy-paste' for clarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_dead_code or find_long_functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (for copy-paste detection), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides no usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful trait, labeling the detection as a 'heuristic', which implies potential false positives. However, it does not explain the nature of results (e.g., file/line references), any limitations, or whether it checks only direct or nested calls, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key subject and consequence. Every word earns its place: the target, the context, the impact, and the heuristic qualifier are all included without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose and a behavioral caveat, but leaves out details about what the output looks like (e.g., list of locations, stack traces) or how to interpret results, which would be needed for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has full coverage (100%) for its single parameter 'name', so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not mention the parameter or add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the target pattern ('fs.*Sync') and its context ('Express handlers or async functions'), and explains the consequence ('blocks the event loop'). However, it relies on the tool name for the verb 'find', as the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a full imperative statement, which slightly reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool: when looking for synchronous I/O in Express handlers or async functions. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to differentiate it from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detection criteria but does not mention output format, whether it is static analysis, potential false positives, or any side effects. The reader knows what it looks for but not what happens when it finds something.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the specific pattern it detects without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior, but it does not state the return format or explicitly mention that the project must be loaded (though the parameter description hints at it). It is adequate but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for 'name' fully explains the parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Per the rubric, high schema coverage (>80%) grounds the score at 3 even without extra parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Detects') and states the exact resource and pattern ('async calls without await or .catch'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling analysis tools that target different issues, such as find_silent_catches or find_unclosed_resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose implies usage (for finding potential unhandled async errors), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling tools with overlapping concerns (e.g., find_silent_catches) are not referenced or differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add a key behavioral trait: the word 'heuristic' indicates the analysis may be approximate. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, accuracy expectations, or whether the scan is limited to the script/template sections of Vue SFCs, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it well-suited for quick agent parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, and the description covers the core intent plus the heuristic nature. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of variable names, locations), which is a gap for agent anticipation of results. It also doesn't explicitly state that 'loaded project' is required, though the schema hints at that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the only parameter ('name' with description 'Name or path of the loaded project'), so the description adds no additional parameter information. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('find') and identifies a precise resource ('declared reactive state (ref/reactive/computed/shallowRef)') with a clear scope ('not used in the template or the rest of the script'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unused_variables and find_dead_code, which cover broader or different categories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case (detecting unused Vue reactive declarations) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as find_unused_variables. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites like requiring a loaded project prior to calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the inventory content, not behavior. It doesn't disclose that it's a read-only listing, whether it requires a loaded project (though schema implies this), or error conditions. The description is purely descriptive of output, not operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful Angular version note. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description doesn't fully specify the return format beyond 'inventory' and the standalone/non-standalone split; it mentions composition imports but not field details or any caveats. It's adequate for a simple list tool but could be more explicit about output shape.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'name' is already well-described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it's a component inventory distinguishing standalone (with composition imports) from non-standalone (NgModule-dependent), directly addressing the tool's name and differentiating from siblings like 'list_angular_components'. It specifies the scope as Angular 19+ with a note about default standalone, giving a specific resource and categorization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context that this is relevant for Angular 19+ where standalone is default, implying it's for assessing standalone adoption. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_angular_components or exclude other tools, so it's clear but not fully prescriptive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior (listing TS/JS files with line counts) and the optional filter, but does not mention any side effects, whether the listing is recursive, or if it respects ignore files. It is not misleading but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Lists') and includes only useful information about output and optional filtering. There is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides an adequate but incomplete picture. It states the result type (files with line counts) but leaves uncertainty about whether the list is recursive, includes hidden files, or how paths are formatted. For a simple tool this may be acceptable, but more details would improve usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal semantic context by relating 'ext' to 'filter by extension' and 'name' to 'the project', which aligns with the schema's own field descriptions, so it does not significantly exceed the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('TS/JS files of the project') with an additional detail ('with their line count'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_functions or list_variables by focusing on files rather than code elements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is only implied: the tool lists files and optionally filters by extension. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_file_content or search_source, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's required 'name' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of conveying safety and side effects. The verb 'detects' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the project or disclose any limitations (e.g., does it require the project to be loaded?). It adds some context by listing frameworks, but does not fully address behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical list of frameworks. It is appropriately concise and contains no fluff or repetition. Every element (verb, resource, output candidates) earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple detection tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the input and the expected output categories. However, it does not describe the exact return format or what happens if the project is not loaded, which could be a minor gap. Overall, it suffices for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter ('name' described as 'Name or path of the loaded project'). The tool description adds no additional meaning to this parameter; it simply restates the purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter, yet the description does not enrich it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Detects the framework') and the specific resource ('of the loaded project'), and it enumerates the possible detected frameworks (Vue, Nuxt, Angular, Express, Fastify, Node, plain). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that analyze particular frameworks or perform other project tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: the agent should call this when it needs to know the project's framework, presumably to select framework-specific sibling tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'use after loading a project'). The context is clear but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the search patterns and grouping, but it omits other behavioral traits such as requiring a loaded project, output structure details beyond grouping, or potential heuristic false positives. More transparency would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise, front-loaded sentence that includes all key information with no unnecessary words. The structured list of `any` patterns is efficient and highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only search tool, the description covers the purpose, patterns, and grouping. There is no output schema, so a richer return format description would be ideal, but 'Grouped by file' provides a baseline. The schema fills in the parameter details, making it adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains `name` and `max_results`. The description adds context about grouping by file, which relates to max_results, but no additional parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds `any` usages in a project, enumerates the exact patterns (`: any`, `as any`, `<any>`, params/returns), and indicates results are grouped by file. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unsafe_type_casts or find_ts_ignores.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for type-debt analysis but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude cases. The context is clear enough, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like find_ts_ignores or find_unsafe_type_casts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action (checking implementations) but does not disclose return format, whether transitive implementations are included, or any limitations. While it is a read-only query, that is not explicitly stated. The description adds a bit of context beyond the name but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is useful, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema. The description adequately communicates the core behavior: finding classes that implement/extend a given type. It is complete enough for its simplicity, though it does not elaborate on edge cases or return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (name and type_name) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Checks') and clearly defines the resource (classes implementing an interface or extending a base class). It explicitly mentions inheritance, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_unimplemented_interfaces (which looks for missing implementations) and get_type_hierarchy (which shows full hierarchy).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to know implementors of an interface or subclasses of a class), but it does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced, so the agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so by labeling the check as 'heuristic' and 'possible', indicating the results may not be definitive, and by specifying the exact code patterns inspected. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it describe the output format, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly packed sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and heuristic pattern. It contains no redundant or filler content, achieving high conciseness while preserving all essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the specific vulnerability pattern it targets. It omits an explicit statement of return value structure, but this is not mandated given the absence of an output schema. The combination of purpose, heuristic caveat, and pattern list yields a reasonably complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'name' as 'Name or path of the loaded project', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's function: to find possible command injection vulnerabilities through a heuristic approach, explicitly listing the affected API calls (exec/execSync/spawn) and the pattern (variable interpolation). This directly distinguishes it from sibling vulnerability scanners like find_sql_injection and find_xss_vectors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for command injection detection within a broader security analysis workflow, and sibling tools cover other vulnerability types. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like other scanner tools or specific project types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states results are grouped by file and that complexity is a heuristic, which is useful. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose default thresholds (e.g., max_complexity=15) or result ordering. These omissions leave some behavioral uncertainty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core output and grouping. It is front-loaded with the key concept and contains no redundant or filler words. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: it returns functions/methods meeting a complexity threshold, grouped by file. It does not detail the exact return structure or default parameter values, but those are partly covered by the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a heuristic-lookup tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides descriptive detail for all three parameters (name, max_results, max_complexity) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema specifies; the mention of 'high cyclomatic complexity' aligns with max_complexity but does not enrich parameter understanding. Since schema coverage is high, this is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: finding functions/methods with high cyclomatic complexity, a specific technical-debt heuristic, and notes results are grouped by file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_long_functions (length-based) and function_metrics (comprehensive metrics). The resource and criterion are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case (technical-debt detection) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It offers no guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention sibling tools like find_long_functions or function_metrics as potential alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description notes the heuristic nature of the analysis, which is a key behavioral caveat. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or how results are returned. With no annotations, more disclosure would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential information about store types and the unused condition. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The definition is clear about the analysis criterion and heuristic nature, and the schema covers the parameter. It lacks an explicit statement of the return format, but the tool name and common sense for a 'find' tool imply a list of unused stores. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter, and the description does not add further parameter-specific context beyond indicating the tool operates on a loaded project. The baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description directly states what the tool does: it finds Svelte stores (writable/readable/derived) that are declared/exported but unused. This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like find_unused_variables or find_dead_code by specifying store types and the heuristic limitation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no explicit usage guidance, alternatives, or when-not-to-use. The intended use is implied by the name and coverage of 'template or script', but no comparison to sibling tools is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It implies a read-only operation by using 'inspects' and lists the components examined, but it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, output format, or error cases. This is adequate for a simple inspection tool but lacks explicit safety confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant language. It earns its place by listing the inspected attributes in a compact list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the four key aspects of a function that will be returned (signature, parameters, doc, body), which is sufficient for a focused inspection tool. There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration acts as the output contract. However, it does not mention the return format or how errors like 'symbol not found' are handled, leaving a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage: 'name' refers to the loaded project and 'symbol' takes a function name or 'Class.method'. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond restating the symbol format, so the schema already carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action (inspects) and resource (a function or method), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_functions or inspect_class. It also specifies the exact aspects inspected: signature, parameters, doc, body.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user needs details about a specific function or method, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like inspect_class or list_functions. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists 'auto-imported' items, but does not mention return format, whether it requires a loaded project, or if it scans recursively. Adequate for a simple read tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it does. It could mention return details, but for a basic list operation, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'name' parameter described as 'Name or path of the loaded project.' The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and the resource ('auto-imported composables') with specific locations ('composables/ and utils/'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_vue_components or list_functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the user needs to know auto-imported composables in a Nuxt project, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like nuxt_auto_imports or list_functions. Context is present but no when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explicitly stating the heuristic nature of the analysis and what it marks (deps used in the callback but missing from the array), which sets accurate expectations about approximate results. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the output format, or any performance implications, though those are less critical for an inventory-like tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that packs essential information: the hooks covered, the dependency-array focus, and the heuristic behavior. The parenthetical is concise and adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It does so by indicating it inventories hooks with their dependency arrays and marks missing deps, which gives a reasonable picture of the output content. It does not specify the exact structure (e.g., file, line numbers), but for a listing tool this is acceptable given the schema and sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single 'name' parameter as 'Name or path of the loaded project' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, such as required format or how the name is resolved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's resource (React hooks useEffect/useMemo/useCallback) and its scope (dependency arrays plus a heuristic that flags missing deps). It distinguishes this from sibling React analysis tools like analyze_react_component or find_react_effect_leaks by focusing specifically on dependency arrays, but it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on 'Inventory' as a noun.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to inspect React hook dependencies, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as find_react_effect_leaks or analyze_react_state. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool returns load/action details including error handling and params, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or requires the project to be loaded first. The lack of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap for a listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key detail categories. It has no filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter, the description provides essential context about scope (per route) and content (throw error/fail/redirect/params). However, it does not explicitly state the return format or the prerequisite that the project must be loaded, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full description coverage for the single 'name' parameter (100%). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies entirely on the schema, which meets the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: it lists load functions and actions from +page.server.ts and +layout.server.ts files per route, with specific details like throw error, fail, redirect, and params. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sveltekit_routes, which focus on routes themselves.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to inspect SvelteKit load/actions per route, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like list_sveltekit_routes or list_sveltekit_server_hooks. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mechanism ('by imports') and the two outputs (mapping and untested modules), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether the project must be loaded first, or what the exact return format is. This is moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a secondary behavior without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the core behavior and the two types of results (mapping and untested modules), but it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns an object, array, or file paths). Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail about the return structure, making this incomplete but not severely so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning as 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verb 'maps' and resource 'production modules (src/) to their tests (.test./.spec.)' along with the method 'by imports'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by highlighting the test-mapping scope and the additional behavior of listing modules without tests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when this tool is relevant: when you need to understand the relationship between source modules and their tests, and identify untested modules. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is heuristic, which is valuable context about potential false positives/negatives. However, it does not clarify side effects (though read-only is implied), required project state, or limitations beyond the heuristic nature. This is a moderate level of transparency for a read-only analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the heuristic caveat. No wasted words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple diagnostic tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does, what it looks for (template identifiers that don't resolve), and the heuristic nature of the check. It effectively communicates the return concept (unresolved identifiers) without needing an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description covers the single parameter 'name' completely as 'Name or path of the loaded project', so the description adds no new parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool description does not need to elaborate further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Identifiers used in the <template> that do not resolve...') with a well-defined resource (Vue template identifiers) and a clear outcome (possible typo or undeclared variable). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vue_template_binding_analysis' by focusing on unresolved identifiers specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for debugging template typos or undeclared variables but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like 'analyze_vue_component' or 'vue_template_binding_analysis'. It provides context but no explicit when/when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context (ts-morph, deterministic, framework detection) but does not disclose side effects like state persistence, whether multiple loads are allowed, or the need to unload. This is a notable gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded, and the framework list adds value without unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or behavior on invalid paths. It also does not explicitly state that loading is a prerequisite for other analysis tools, which is important given the large sibling set. The tool is simple enough that this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'source' and 'alias' fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond noting the project directory, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool loads a JavaScript/TypeScript project directory for deterministic analysis using ts-morph, and lists the frameworks it detects. This distinctly identifies it as the entry-point loading tool among many analysis siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for deterministic analysis' implies this should be used before other analysis tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., detect_framework, refresh_js_project, unload_js_project). Context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the heuristic nature of the unused-parameter detection, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any potential false-positive implications, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that includes a clarifying example and a heuristic caveat. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is found and notes the heuristic aspect. It could mention the return format or explicitly say it applies to TypeScript, but the core behavior is clear enough for a simple finder tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'name' with a description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies that this tool finds type parameters lacking constraints or unused in the body, using a concrete example (`<T>` vs `<T extends ...>`). This distinguishes it from the many other `find_*` sibling tools and precisely defines the target resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the use case obvious: when searching for loose or unused generic type parameters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is heuristic and specifies the exact detection patterns, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly mention potential false positives, output format, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the specific heuristic patterns. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool finds and its heuristic nature. A slight gap is the lack of any mention of the return format or limitations, but the focused scope keeps this from being a major deficiency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('unsafe type casts') and goes further to enumerate exactly what patterns are detected ('as any, as never and double cast `as unknown as X`'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_any_usages or find_non_null_assertions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when looking for unsafe type casts) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The term 'heuristic' hints at expected false positives, but no concrete guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions key behaviors (exported-constant resolution, orphan key detection) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or any side effects. This is a partial disclosure; more context about the result format and safety would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core concept ('Cross-file provide/inject graph') and then adds valuable specifics in a compact list. There is no redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex, and the description covers the main functionality well, including edge cases like orphan keys. However, without an output schema, it does not explicitly describe the graph's structure or how to interpret the results. Given that the description is otherwise complete, a score of 4 is reasonable but slightly short of full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single parameter 'name' with 100% description coverage, already explaining it as the project name or path. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it builds a cross-file provide/inject graph, resolving exported constants and identifying orphan keys. This is a specific verb (analysis) on a specific resource (Vue provide/inject relationships) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_vue_component or vue_template_binding_analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the usage context clear: it is for analyzing cross-file provide/inject patterns, which is distinct from component-level or template analyses. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the specificity provides strong contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but doesn't disclose whether the listing is sorted, what information each project entry contains, or whether the tool has any side effects or prerequisites. For a read-only list operation, this is basic 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly identifies the target resource, making it optimally sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of no output schema, the description is largely complete for the basic action. However, it could benefit from clarifying what 'lists' returns (e.g., project names, IDs, paths), which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description adds no parametrization detail because there is nothing to add. This matches the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and the resource ('currently loaded projects'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like load_js_project, unload_js_project, and refresh_js_project by focusing on the listing of already-loaded projects rather than managing project lifecycle.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among siblings. The usage is implied by the simple verb and resource, but the agent isn't told when this should be preferred over program_summary or other listing tools. It lacks clear context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content: route.ts files with HTTP methods and dynamic params, plus middleware.ts with its matcher. This is useful behavioral detail, though it does not explicitly describe the return format or state limitations beyond the implicit 'Next app router' scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('API routes of the Next app router') followed by specific details. It contains no waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is included. It could mention the loaded project requirement more explicitly, but the schema covers the parameter. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter 'name' (Name or path of the loaded project) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies exactly what the tool lists: Next.js App Router API routes (route.ts), including HTTP methods, dynamic params, and middleware.ts matcher. This distinguishes it from sibling list_next_routes by restricting to API routes in the App Router, and the verb 'list' is present in the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Next.js App Router projects but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that list_next_routes might be used for other route types, nor does it state exclusions. The scope is clear from 'Next app router,' but no comparative direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals important behavioral details: the order of the call chain, validation libraries recognized, auth middleware inclusion, error handling via next(err), and resolution of mounted routers. This goes beyond a simple 'analyze' claim.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, information-dense sentences. The first establishes the core purpose; the second adds a key behavior. No fluff or redundant phrases.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by enumerating the elements of the analysis (handler, service, repo, validation, auth, error handling). It doesn't specify the exact return format, but the essential behavior is communicated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already fully describes both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by clarifying that 'path' is an endpoint path and that mounted routers are resolved, which aids interpretation of prefix paths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the tool's function: tracing the call chain of an API endpoint (handler → service → repo), with details on validation, auth middleware, and error handling. It distinguishes from siblings like list_api_endpoints by focusing on the internal flow rather than just listing endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool—when a detailed understanding of an endpoint's execution chain is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the scope is well-defined, allowing an agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is incremental and only re-reads files with changed size or mtime, which is useful behavioral insight. It does not mention whether it mutates the in-memory project or what happens if the project is not loaded, but the parameter description mitigates the latter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that leads with the main action ('Rescans the file tree') and immediately provides the key behavioral detail ('incrementally syncs'). Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core operation and its incremental behavior. It does not describe return values, but for a refresh action this is not a significant gap. The context of being a project-management tool is clear from the sibling tools and parameter description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project', covering 100% of parameter documentation. The tool description adds no further meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool rescans the file tree and incrementally syncs the ts-morph project, specifying that only changed files are re-read. This uses a specific verb ('rescans', 'syncs') and resource ('ts-morph project'), and clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like load_js_project and unload_js_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to refresh an already-loaded project after file changes, with the parameter requiring a loaded project. It provides clear context for when to use it but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use this instead of reloading the entire project with load_js_project'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is heuristic, covers components/directives/services, and ignores comments. It also defines what counts as a clean subscription, setting accurate expectations about how results are determined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. Every clause adds meaningful detail about scope, detection logic, or exclusions, with no redundant or filler wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a heuristic finder with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description provides solid coverage: it explains what is found, where, and under what conditions. It does not describe the result format or potential false positives, but the heuristic label mitigates that omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the single 'name' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but none is needed given the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool finds uncleaned Angular subscriptions via a heuristic. It specifies the exact resource (subscribe() calls), the scope (components/directives/services), and the cleanup criteria (ngOnDestroy/unsubscribe/takeUntil/async pipe), clearly distinguishing it from sibling leak-detection tools like find_event_listener_leaks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when auditing Angular classes for subscription cleanup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the Angular-specific scope and sibling context make the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![javascript-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aferreiraguido/javascript-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aferreiraguido/javascript-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![javascript-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aferreiraguido/javascript-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/aferreiraguido/javascript-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aferreiraguido/javascript-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server