list_react_hooks_deps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explicitly stating the heuristic nature of the analysis and what it marks (deps used in the callback but missing from the array), which sets accurate expectations about approximate results. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, the output format, or any performance implications, though those are less critical for an inventory-like 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 sentence that packs essential information: the hooks covered, the dependency-array focus, and the heuristic behavior. The parenthetical is concise and adds value without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It does so by indicating it inventories hooks with their dependency arrays and marks missing deps, which gives a reasonable picture of the output content. It does not specify the exact structure (e.g., file, line numbers), but for a listing tool this is acceptable given the schema and sibling context.

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 fully describes the single 'name' parameter as 'Name or path of the loaded project' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, such as required format or how the name is resolved.

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 resource (React hooks useEffect/useMemo/useCallback) and its scope (dependency arrays plus a heuristic that flags missing deps). It distinguishes this from sibling React analysis tools like analyze_react_component or find_react_effect_leaks by focusing specifically on dependency arrays, but it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on 'Inventory' as a noun.

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 the tool is used to inspect React hook dependencies, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as find_react_effect_leaks or analyze_react_state. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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