find_sync_io_blocking

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful trait, labeling the detection as a 'heuristic', which implies potential false positives. However, it does not explain the nature of results (e.g., file/line references), any limitations, or whether it checks only direct or nested calls, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key subject and consequence. Every word earns its place: the target, the context, the impact, and the heuristic qualifier are all included without fluff.

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 relatively simple with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose and a behavioral caveat, but leaves out details about what the output looks like (e.g., list of locations, stack traces) or how to interpret results, which would be needed for full completeness.

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 full coverage (100%) for its single parameter 'name', so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not mention the parameter or add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 target pattern ('fs.*Sync') and its context ('Express handlers or async functions'), and explains the consequence ('blocks the event loop'). However, it relies on the tool name for the verb 'find', as the description itself is a noun phrase rather than a full imperative statement, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provides clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool: when looking for synchronous I/O in Express handlers or async functions. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to differentiate it from sibling tools.

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