find_vue_provide_inject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions key behaviors (exported-constant resolution, orphan key detection) but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what the output structure looks like, or any side effects. This is a partial disclosure; more context about the result format and safety would improve 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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core concept ('Cross-file provide/inject graph') and then adds valuable specifics in a compact list. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 moderately complex, and the description covers the main functionality well, including edge cases like orphan keys. However, without an output schema, it does not explicitly describe the graph's structure or how to interpret the results. Given that the description is otherwise complete, a score of 4 is reasonable but slightly short of 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 a single parameter 'name' with 100% description coverage, already explaining it as the project name or path. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: it builds a cross-file provide/inject graph, resolving exported constants and identifying orphan keys. This is a specific verb (analysis) on a specific resource (Vue provide/inject relationships) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_vue_component or vue_template_binding_analysis.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is for analyzing cross-file provide/inject patterns, which is distinct from component-level or template analyses. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the specificity provides strong contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool.

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