veto_type_coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses a key limitation (implicit any requires the compiler and is not counted) and the ordering behavior (security-sensitive paths first). It does not mention pagination or rate/output shape, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core counting behavior is front-loaded and the caveat about implicit any is placed last where it belongs. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: it says it reports counts, strict/noImplicitAny settings, and suggested replacements. The agentic-loop second-phase nature of agent_response is not explained here, which is the main remaining gap.

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 all three parameters (project_dir, max_files, agent_response) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it counts named TypeScript constructs (`any`, `as any`, @ts-ignore, @ts-expect-error), reports tsconfig strictness, and suggests replacements. This is far more precise than a sibling tool name alone, and the scope ('TypeScript project') is explicit.

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 never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as veto_lint_rules or veto_test_gaps, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool's purpose, so guidance is essentially absent.

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