find_errors

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

The description only lists the patterns analyzed but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether it modifies anything, or any prerequisites. With no annotations available, this leaves important behavioral aspects unstated.

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?

A single, focused sentence front-loads the key purpose and lists concrete error patterns; no wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return value or result format, but it only mentions the analysis scope. The lack of behavioral context (e.g., read-only, output shape) makes it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's response.

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 already fully describes both parameters (path and function) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Analyzes' and a specific resource 'TypeScript-specific error patterns' with concrete examples (floating promises, empty catches, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_smells 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?

It gives clear context by specifying TypeScript-specific patterns, implying it's for TS files, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or explain when to prefer it over tools like code_smells.

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