Ultra Debugger

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 states the tool analyzes for 'potential issues using ESLint', which implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but doesn't specify what the output includes (e.g., warnings, errors, metrics), whether it modifies the file, or any performance or rate limit considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of code analysis, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., linting results, severity levels), how issues are categorized, or any behavioral traits like error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely produces structured diagnostic output.

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 the single parameter 'file_path' fully documented in the schema as 'Path to the JavaScript file to analyze'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as file format constraints or path resolution details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('analyze') and resource ('JavaScript file') with the specific purpose ('for potential issues using ESLint'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_multiple_js_files' or 'get_analysis_report', but the single-file focus is implied. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_multiple_js_files' for multiple files or 'get_analysis_report' for reports. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit guidelines.

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