Lint UI5 code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which establishes the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the analysis scope, such as deprecated APIs and missing controllers, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like output format or runtime side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Analyzes JS/XML code') and then provides a concrete list of issue categories that justify the tool's purpose.

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 two-parameter, read-only linter with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides enough context for invocation. It clearly states what the tool checks, and the schema covers path and file details. It does not offer guidance on choosing this over run_manifest_validation, but that gap is accounted for under usage guidelines.

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 projectPath and files fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, such as path conventions or how file filtering behaves, so the schema carries the full burden. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyzes JS/XML code of a UI5 app for common issues.' It enumerates concrete categories like deprecated APIs, removed libraries, missing controllers, and missing i18n keys, which makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling run_manifest_validation and other app-generation tools.

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 intended use is implied by the name and the phrase 'Analyzes JS/XML code of a UI5 app,' but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_manifest_validation. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions, so an agent must infer the selection criteria.

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