find_unclosed_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add useful context by noting the heuristic nature and scope limitation ('in the same scope'), but it omits details like whether it requires a loaded project, what the output looks like, or how it handles nested scopes. This is a moderate level of 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 sentence that front-loads the key subjects and qualifiers. It is efficient and contains no filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description explains its core function and caveat. However, it lacks guidance on expected return shape or when to apply it, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding between this and similar leak-detection tools.

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 fully documents the only parameter ('name') with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the high schema coverage (100%) means the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('find') and resource ('Streams/connections/http.request') and adds a scoping detail ('in the same scope'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling find_* tools like find_event_emitter_leaks or find_sql_injection, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the tool name itself, which implies usage for detecting resource leaks, but this is not explicit.

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