analyze_js

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core function but does not disclose that fetching a URL likely makes a network request, any permission requirements, or rate limits. However, the tool appears to be read-only and non-destructive, so the lack of explicit safety disclaimers is a moderate gap.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and input flexibility. No fluff, no repetition, and all words contribute meaning.

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 one parameter, an output schema present, and a clear purpose, the description covers most needed context. It could mention behavior on invalid URLs or whether pasted content is required versus URL, but the overall completeness is good for a focused 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?

The schema only declares 'source' as a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description's mention of 'pasted content or a URL' meaningfully clarifies what the source parameter accepts, adding value beyond the schema. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 the specific verb 'extract' and clearly states the resources (secrets, endpoints, parameters) and the input source (JavaScript pasted content or URL). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools which focus on subdomains, DNS, CVEs, etc.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you have JavaScript content (pasted or via URL) and need to extract security-relevant data. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear and distinct from siblings.

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