Detect JavaScript obfuscation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: 'local deterministic heuristics' implies no network calls and reproducible results, and 'common obfuscation signals' sets expectations of coverage. However, it omits key behavioral traits such as the exact output format (e.g., a numeric score, boolean, structured report), error handling on invalid input, and any side effects. This leaves uncertainty about what the tool actually returns and how to interpret the 'score'.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Score supplied JavaScript') and then efficiently specifies the scope and method. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or unnecessary details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it exceptionally well-structured for a quick read.

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 is relatively simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so a compact description can be adequate. The description covers the input type (JavaScript), the operation (scoring obfuscation signals), and the methodology (local deterministic heuristics). However, it lacks information about the return value structure, which is critical for an agent to interpret results. Without an output schema, this omission leaves the tool's behavior incomplete from the agent's perspective. Given the simplicity, a brief note on the output format would make it fully complete.

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 provides only a 'code' string with length constraints and zero description coverage. The description compensates by specifying that the parameter is 'supplied JavaScript', clarifying that the input is raw JavaScript code rather than a path or other representation. It also indicates the parameter is intended for 'scoring', implying the input is the code to analyze. This is a meaningful semantic addition, though it does not elaborate on formatting or other constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 primary function: 'Score supplied JavaScript for common obfuscation signals' — a specific verb (score), resource (JavaScript), and purpose (obfuscation detection). It distinguishes itself from siblings like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_deflat_control_flow by focusing on heuristic scoring rather than transformation or deep structural analysis. The addition of 'using local deterministic heuristics' further clarifies the approach, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for scoring JavaScript obfuscation signals but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or indicate whether this is a preliminary triage step versus a deeper analysis tool. The phrase 'local deterministic heuristics' hints at a lightweight, offline check, but this is not explicitly contrasted with sibling tools like js_deobfuscate_pipeline or analysis_security_scan.

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