find_vue_unused_reactive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does add a key behavioral trait: the word 'heuristic' indicates the analysis may be approximate. However, it does not disclose potential limitations, accuracy expectations, or whether the scan is limited to the script/template sections of Vue SFCs, leaving some ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's function and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it well-suited for quick agent parsing.

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 relatively simple with one parameter, and the description covers the core intent plus the heuristic nature. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of variable names, locations), which is a gap for agent anticipation of results. It also doesn't explicitly state that 'loaded project' is required, though the schema hints at that.

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 describes the only parameter ('name' with description 'Name or path of the loaded project'), so the description adds no additional parameter information. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 ('find') and identifies a precise resource ('declared reactive state (ref/reactive/computed/shallowRef)') with a clear scope ('not used in the template or the rest of the script'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_unused_variables and find_dead_code, which cover broader or different categories.

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 its use case (detecting unused Vue reactive declarations) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as find_unused_variables. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites like requiring a loaded project prior to calling.

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