depguard_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what issues it checks for, but it does not mention whether the tool modifies files, its side effects, or any permissions needed. The mode parameter hints at performance but is covered in the schema.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with usage context. Every sentence adds value: timing, scope, findings, action. Could be slightly more concise but is efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains when to call, what it checks, and what to do with results. No missing critical information.

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 baseline 3. The description mentions scanning source files which relates to the 'path' parameter, but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for 'mode'.

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 specific verb 'scans' and resource 'source files', listing concrete issues like console.logs, empty catch blocks, broken imports. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to call it: after significant code changes or before commit.

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 states when to use ('Call this AFTER making significant code changes or before the user commits') and provides outcome expectations ('Fix the findings before reporting your work as done'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative siblings, but the context is strong.

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