find_unimplemented_interfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the heuristic uses TypeScript's structural typing, meaning the result is not based on explicit `implements` clauses alone. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, output format, or limitations beyond the heuristic.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core purpose and a heuristic caveat. It is concise with no filler, though the noun-phrase structure could be improved to a verb-led instruction.

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 query tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is returned and the key heuristic, but does not explain how results are presented or when this analysis is useful. Sibling tools provide a broad context, but the description itself lacks 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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter `name` with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'). The description adds no extra semantic value about how the parameter affects the search, but the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 output: interfaces whose methods have no explicit class implementation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_check_implementations by emphasizing the heuristic nature ('no class explicitly implements'), though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the parenthetical about TypeScript's structural typing, which implies a use case but does not state scenarios or exclusions. It does not reference sibling tools like find_check_implementations or find_any_usages.

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