analyze_angular_route_guards

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.