Find Error Gaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the analysis detects and returns, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as performance characteristics or result limitations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no wasted words. The core function and return value are front-loaded, and the usage recommendation is placed last as a natural call to action.

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 a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does enough: it defines the risk being detected, the return shape, and when to use it. It could be slightly more complete by noting multi-project context, but that is adequately handled by the schema.

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 the single 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including multi-project mode and the list_projects reference. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline when the schema carries the parameter explanation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('crash risks' / 'error gaps') and explains the precise detection condition: functions that throw or have network/DB side effects whose callers don't catch errors. It also specifies the return content (caller→callee pairs), making the tool's output purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before shipping to find missing error handling,' giving clear situational context. However, it does not name alternative analysis tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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