find_non_null_assertions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only defines the code pattern and does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns (e.g., file locations), or any side effects. This leaves the agent without key behavioral expectations.

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 defines the tool's target with an example and the heuristic label. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is adequate but incomplete: it does not mention what the tool returns or any operational context beyond the purpose. The lack of output schema increases the need for that information, but the tool's low complexity keeps this at a baseline level.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'name' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, but it does not need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 the tool's purpose: finding non-null assertions (`expr!`). It also explains the concept and labels it as a type-debt heuristic, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unsafe_type_casts or find_ts_ignores.

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 phrase 'type-debt heuristic' implies a use case (identifying type-debt code), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, making the usage context only implicit.

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