find_event_emitter_leaks

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 only that detection is heuristic and the specific pattern being sought, but does not state whether this is a read-only analysis, what output format to expect, or potential false positives. The word 'heuristic' adds some value but is insufficient for understanding tool behavior.

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 with no fluff, communicating the core detection criterion and heuristic nature in minimal 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to mention the return value, prerequisites like the project being loaded, or how results are presented. For a find tool with one parameter, this is a significant 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 fully documents the single parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all 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?

Description clearly identifies the target (EventEmitter listeners without cleanup pairs) and the heuristic nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_event_listener_leaks. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'finds' and is a noun phrase, relying on the tool name for 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., loaded project) or contrast with similar leak-detection tools such as find_event_listener_leaks or find_react_effect_leaks.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.