analyze_jsx_props

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains that the tool returns component names, props, types (when includeTypes is true), and file locations. The examples imply it is read-only and non-destructive. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or edge cases, but for an analysis tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet-point use cases, and five numbered examples. Every sentence provides unique information. The examples are particularly efficient at demonstrating parameter usage without verbosity.

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?

Given the four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's capabilities and expected output format. It explains what is returned (components, props, types, locations). It does not cover error scenarios or limit cases, but the examples and bullet points are sufficient for an agent to understand typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples that illustrate how parameters interact (e.g., combining path with componentName or propName). This helps an agent understand the filtering behavior beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 analyzes JSX/React component prop usage across files and directories, with specific verbs and resource. The bullet points and examples distinguish it from siblings by emphasizing it as a general analysis tool that can filter by component or prop, while siblings like find_components_without_prop and get_component_props are more specialized.

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 explicitly says 'Use this tool when you need to' and lists four bullet points covering common scenarios. It provides five concrete examples showing when to use different parameter combinations. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from siblings, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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