veto_type_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: it scans files, suggests replacements, and flags severity. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them, providing a clear picture of the tool's behavior and side-effects.

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 core action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: scanning for 'any', suggesting replacements, and severity for security paths.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, output (suggestions and severity flags), and context (TypeScript project). No output schema is provided, but the description implies what the return will contain. Could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but overall sufficient.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including their descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool scans for 'any', implicit 'any', and 'as any' casts in TypeScript projects, and distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools by focusing specifically on type safety issues. It also mentions suggesting replacements and highlighting security paths, making its function unique among many code review and analysis tools.

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 the tool should be used to check for 'any' types and get suggestions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like veto_code_review or veto_lint_rules. Given the large number of sibling tools, some explicit usage guidance would improve clarity.

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