find_react_effect_leaks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by mentioning the heuristic nature and listing concrete patterns (addEventListener/setInterval/.subscribe) and the cleanup criterion. However, it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., read-only), the format of the return value, or limitations beyond 'heuristic', which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 front-loads the core resource ('useEffect') and provides specific examples and the heuristic caveat. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's focus.

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 has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description is the only source for lifecycle and return behavior. It explains what the tool detects (effects lacking cleanup) but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a list of locations, diagnostics), nor does it mention that it operates on an already loaded project. While the core purpose is clear, the lack of return-value and prerequisite information leaves the description incomplete for a detection tool of this complexity.

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 required parameter, 'name', with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description itself adds nothing about the parameter, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: finding React useEffect hooks that register listeners/timers/subscriptions without cleanup. It names the specific resource (useEffect) and the condition (lack of return cleanup), and the context of React is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_svelte_effect_leaks and find_event_listener_leaks, which target different frameworks or event types.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as find_event_listener_leaks or find_react_memo_opportunities. It neither states in which scenarios this tool is appropriate nor mentions exclusions or alternatives. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, leaving the agent to infer when to select it.

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