find_vue_template_undefined

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 that the tool is heuristic, which is valuable context about potential false positives/negatives. However, it does not clarify side effects (though read-only is implied), required project state, or limitations beyond the heuristic nature. This is a moderate level of transparency for a read-only analysis 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the heuristic caveat. No wasted words, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 diagnostic tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does, what it looks for (template identifiers that don't resolve), and the heuristic nature of the check. It effectively communicates the return concept (unresolved identifiers) without needing an output schema.

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 covers the single parameter 'name' completely as 'Name or path of the loaded project', so the description adds no new parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool description does not need to elaborate further.

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 a specific verb ('Identifiers used in the <template> that do not resolve...') with a well-defined resource (Vue template identifiers) and a clear outcome (possible typo or undeclared variable). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'vue_template_binding_analysis' by focusing on unresolved identifiers specifically.

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 debugging template typos or undeclared variables but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like 'analyze_vue_component' or 'vue_template_binding_analysis'. It provides context but no explicit when/when-not or alternative guidance.

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