find_angular_change_detection

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.