Find Ownership Violations

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: expected result distribution by language and the interpretation that a non-zero result in JS/Python indicates a serious boundary violation worth investigating.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then result behavior by language, then language-specific detail. No sentence restates the name or title, and each adds useful information without waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return expectations; it does so via the 0/non-zero result behavior and language detail. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers the only parameter, leaving only explicit output structure as a minor gap.

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 the single 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or format beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find memory and lifecycle issues') and enumerates examples such as complex ownership, unsafe blocks, escaping references, and illegal mutability. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling analysis tools like find_exposure_leaks, find_layer_violations, or find_dead_code.

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?

Provides useful language-context guidance: returns 0 for most JS/Python codebases and is most detailed for Rust/C++, which implies when results are meaningful. But it does not state when to choose this over sibling tools or any prerequisites beyond what the schema already says.

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