depguard_review

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

The description accurately describes the tool's behavior (scans source files, no destructive actions) and lists the types of issues it detects. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility, and it adequately conveys that this is a read-only review tool.

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 highly concise with two sentences: the first immediately states when to use it, and the second lists the issues. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool scans for issues and returns findings (implied by 'fix the findings'), the description does not explicitly state the output format or what the user should expect as a response. This omission limits completeness for a moderately simple tool.

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% with both parameters well-described (mode with timing and options, path as absolute path). The description adds a context about the types of issues scanned but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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's purpose: to scan source files for issues after code changes or before commit, listing specific types of issues (console.logs, empty catch blocks, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like depguard_audit by focusing on post-change review for introduced issues.

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 call this tool ('AFTER making significant code changes or before the user commits') and instructs to fix findings before reporting done. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the specific timing implies when it is appropriate.

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