code_smells

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of smells detected, giving some transparency, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any limitations (e.g., static analysis only).

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 a list of concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every word contributes. No redundant or misleading content.

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 what the tool returns or how results are presented. It does not, leaving a significant gap. It also lacks context about the tool's role within the sibling set, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (path and function), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; for example, the 'function' parameter's scoping behavior is already described in 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's purpose: detecting code smells. It enumerates specific smells (long functions, too many parameters, deep nesting, god classes, 'any' casts, non-null assertions), which provides concrete examples and distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_complexity or dead_code.

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 when to use the tool (when you want to detect code smells) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like code_complexity or dead_code.

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