check_shadow_dom_js

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the patterns detected but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or whether it modifies anything. The diagnostic nature is implied but not explicit.

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 two sentences, listing patterns efficiently without fluff. It is front-loaded with purpose and scope, making it quick to parse.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not mention output format (e.g., list of findings, severity). The listed patterns provide some context but leave the result structure unspecified, making it incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it restates that codeText is code and tagName is optional for context. No additional parameter details are provided.

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 detects JavaScript anti-patterns violating Shadow DOM encapsulation, listing four specific patterns. The verb 'detects' and resource 'JavaScript anti-patterns' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like check_shadow_dom_usage.

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 for analyzing consumer code for encapsulation violations, but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among siblings like check_shadow_dom_usage. Usage context is clear but not comprehensive.

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