Understand JavaScript

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that parsing is local and that no browser session is required, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention whether code is executed, potential side effects, or return format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity. It adds some value but not comprehensive transparency.

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, front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. There is no fluff or repetition. It is efficiently compact while conveying the core functionality and a key constraint.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse for full understanding. It does not explain the structure of the output summary, how to use the focus parameter effectively, or how this tool relates to the many analysis siblings. It covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'when,' making it incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It mentions 'optional security signals' which hints at the 'focus' enum, but it does not explain what 'structure', 'business', or 'all' focus options do, nor does it describe the 'code' parameter beyond implication. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 function with specific verbs: 'Parse supplied JavaScript locally and summarize structure, calls, complexity, globals, and optional security signals.' It distinguishes itself from sibling browser-based tools by emphasizing 'locally' and 'No browser session is required,' effectively differentiating from browser-bound alternatives.

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 context by noting local parsing and lack of browser dependency, suggesting it's appropriate for static analysis without a session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other analysis siblings (e.g., analysis_ast_match, js_deobfuscate_pipeline) or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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