Find Exposure Leaks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is already covered. The description adds the scoping concept (abstraction boundary leaks) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like how many results to expect, pagination, or what counts as a 'leak' (e.g., direct field access vs. method calls). With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with a precise definition of the leak type, followed by the concrete usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only analysis tool with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the what and the when well. It lacks an explicit tie to sibling tools (e.g., find_layer_violations) that an agent might confuse it with, but otherwise it's complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline should be high. The description doesn't repeat the parameter, but the schema already explains 'project' with a pointer to list_projects. No additional semantics are needed or missing, so a 4 is warranted for adequately letting the schema do the work.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and a precisely defined resource ('places where public/API code directly accesses private internals, bypassing the intended abstraction boundary'). This is a concrete architectural concern that distinguishes it from siblings like find_layer_violations or find_ownership_violations.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use it: 'during API design reviews or before extracting a module.' This is a specific, actionable trigger. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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