getWhereBindings

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 what the tool does (finds 'where' clauses) and their purpose (contain local helper functions and variables), but doesn't describe the return format, error handling, performance characteristics, or whether it requires specific code formatting. For a code analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and target, the second explains the utility. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's moderate complexity (code analysis with one parameter), 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and why, but doesn't address return format, error cases, or detailed behavioral expectations. For a tool without output schema, more information about what gets returned would be helpful.

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 has 100% description coverage with one parameter ('code') clearly documented as 'PureScript code snippet.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'PureScript functions' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context about code format expectations, size limitations, or preprocessing requirements. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find 'where' clauses in PureScript functions' with the specific resource being PureScript code. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'where' clauses rather than imports, module names, or other code analysis tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'getTopLevelDeclarations' which might also analyze code structure.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for understanding function implementation details' suggests this tool is for code analysis rather than execution or transformation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getFunctionNames' or 'getTopLevelDeclarations', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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