find_silent_catches

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful criteria ('empty catch blocks, console-only, or those that discard the error without binding or re-throw') and flags it as heuristic, but it does not mention false-positive risk, return format, or whether the operation is purely read-only. This is adequate but not rich.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence with a colon-led definition and semicolon-separated categories. Every word adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and matching criteria. It does not describe return values or usage context, but given the sibling suite context and the clear pattern definition, it is largely complete.

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 only parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema as 'Name or path of the loaded project', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter information, but because the schema already covers it completely, baseline 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 uses a specific verb plus resource ('find silent catches') and explicitly defines the three detection categories: empty catch blocks, console-only catches, and catches that discard the error without binding or re-throwing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_unchecked_errors.

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 implies usage as a diagnostic search tool but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as find_unchecked_errors or find_dead_code. It states what it finds but not when it should be preferred or when it is inappropriate.

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