find_unchecked_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the detection criteria but does not mention output format, whether it is static analysis, potential false positives, or any side effects. The reader knows what it looks for but not what happens when it finds something.

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 with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the specific pattern it detects without extraneous information.

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?

This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior, but it does not state the return format or explicitly mention that the project must be loaded (though the parameter description hints at it). It is adequate but not rich.

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 description for 'name' fully explains the parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project'), and the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. Per the rubric, high schema coverage (>80%) grounds the score at 3 even without extra parameter info.

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 ('Detects') and states the exact resource and pattern ('async calls without await or .catch'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling analysis tools that target different issues, such as find_silent_catches or find_unclosed_resources.

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 purpose implies usage (for finding potential unhandled async errors), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling tools with overlapping concerns (e.g., find_silent_catches) are not referenced or differentiated.

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