analyze_vue_component

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.