Find Unresolved XAML Bindings

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

With annotations covering the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world), the description still adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot: the conservative 'skip carries the accuracy claim' recall-vs-precision contract, the single measured false-report class with its fixture-pinning, the caveat that a hit is evidence to verify not proof, and the live-analysis requirement ('call refresh_session after edits') plus the recalled-snapshot failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and routing before drilling into coverage mechanics, returns, and caveats, and each paragraph has a distinct role. It is nonetheless very long and dense for a one-parameter tool, with the skip/accuracy rationale restated, so it stops short of maximal conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (count, unresolvedBindings with view/viewModel/member/line, markupFilesScanned, bindingSitesInMarkup, sitesJudged, sitesSkipped, sitesSkippedBy, judgementNote) and how to interpret a zero. Nothing an agent needs to call or correctly read the tool is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents sessionId (session_id from analyze_solution, or an absolute .sln/.slnx/.slnf path). The description adds no additional syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List silently broken XAML bindings: a {Binding X} whose root member does NOT exist on its confidently resolved DataContext view-model') and pins the exact defect class ('neither the compiler nor render-smoke tests catch'). It distinguishes itself from find_binding_usages and find_resource_usages by name, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it after renaming or removing view-model members'), states its scope limit ('judges the ROOT member of a binding path only'), and names the alternatives for the adjacent task ('To see where a member or a resource key is bound use find_binding_usages / find_resource_usages'). When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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