vue_template_binding_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyzes', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explain whether it requires a loaded project, how it handles missing files, what counts as 'used' (e.g., in expressions vs. event handlers), or give any output details. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 purpose and uses no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 description is adequate for tool selection but lacks details about return values and edge cases, especially since there is no output schema. For an analysis tool, it would be helpful to know whether the result is a list of variable names, usages, or a structured report. Parameters are fully documented, but the overall context is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('file' and 'name') already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the burden.

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 ('Analyzes') and clearly identifies the resource (script variables in the <template> of a .vue component), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from broader siblings like analyze_vue_component and related template checks like find_vue_template_undefined by focusing on bindings rather than undefined references or general 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 intended use case is implied: when you need to know which script variables appear in the template. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as a loaded project, though the parameter description hints at it.

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