angular_template_analysis

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.