analyze_react_state

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.