find_ts_ignores

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only enumerates the suppressors and labels them as type debt; it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what prerequisites exist (e.g., loaded project), or what output format to expect. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.

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 immediately specifies the resource and the type-debt angle. Every word adds value, and it is well front-loaded with the key term 'Type suppressors'.

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 simple single-parameter search tool, the description is functional but minimal. It lacks output expectations (e.g., list of locations, counts) and any behavioral details. Given no output schema and no annotations, slightly more context would be warranted, but the low complexity keeps it at a middling score.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' (name/path of loaded project), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but none is needed beyond the schema.

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 TypeScript type suppression directives (@ts-ignore, @ts-nocheck, @ts-expect-error). The verb 'find' in the tool name plus the concrete resource enumeration makes it unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unchecked_errors or typecheck_project.

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 for identifying 'type debt' (suppressions) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not compare with related tools such as find_unchecked_errors or find_dead_code, leaving the agent to infer context from the parenthetical phrase.

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