Analyze JavaScript data flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the analysis is intra-file and bounded, but does not explain what 'bounded' means (e.g., limits on code size, iteration depth) or what 'shallow taint-path' entails. There is no mention of read-only behavior, performance implications, or output format.

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 with no superfluous words, front-loading the verb and core output. Every term adds technical specificity, but the density of jargon makes it less readable than ideal. Still, it is concise and well-structured for an expert audience.

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?

For a data-flow analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, the nature of source/assignment/sink, or constraints like 'bounded' and 'shallow.' The agent would likely need to invoke the tool blindly to understand its behavior.

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 schema has one parameter 'code' with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no meaning to the parameter. The parameter name 'code' is self-explanatory, so a score of 2 reflects the lack of explicit semantic enrichment.

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 'produce' and identifies the resource as a 'bounded intra-file source, assignment, sink, and shallow taint-path projection.' This conveys a focused data-flow analysis action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analysis_ast_match or understand_code. However, the heavy jargon and vague terms 'bounded' and 'shallow' prevent a perfect score.

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 such as analysis_security_scan or js_deobfuscate_pipeline. The intended use is only implied by the name and the term 'data flow.' No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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