find_loose_generics

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 does disclose the heuristic nature of the unused-parameter detection, which is valuable behavioral information. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any potential false-positive implications, leaving gaps.

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, tightly worded sentence that includes a clarifying example and a heuristic caveat. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is found and notes the heuristic aspect. It could mention the return format or explicitly say it applies to TypeScript, but the core behavior is clear enough for a simple finder tool.

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 has one parameter 'name' with a description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies that this tool finds type parameters lacking constraints or unused in the body, using a concrete example (`<T>` vs `<T extends ...>`). This distinguishes it from the many other `find_*` sibling tools and precisely defines the target resource.

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 makes the use case obvious: when searching for loose or unused generic type parameters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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