javascript_structure_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, but does not disclose if it is read-only, any auth requirements, or edge cases. For a tool that returns multiple data types, more transparency is needed.

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, very concise. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the key purpose and then provide parameter context. For the amount of information conveyed, it is 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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, the tool returns multiple types (files, functions, dependencies, test usage), and the description lacks details on how these are structured. With no annotations, it feels incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters. It doesn't mention 'project_name' or 'limit', so it provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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 returns JavaScript files, exported/helper functions, dependencies, and test usage. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and lists distinct resources. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'search_js_usage' (which focuses on searching), it could be more precise about the exact scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_project' or 'search_js_usage'. The description implies it's for structural analysis, but does not state when to choose it over other tools or any prerequisites. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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