analyze_hook_deps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of analysis performed and categories of issues found, but does not describe the output format, whether the tool modifies files (though 'Analyze' implies read-only), or any limitations. This is a moderate gap for a tool that is expected to return diagnostics.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: what it analyzes, what it finds, and when it's essential. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description should explain the expected return value. It describes the types of findings but not how they are presented (e.g., line numbers, severity, structured list). The tool is moderately complex with three parameters, and while the purpose is clear, the output contract is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (filePath, hookTypes, componentName). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes React hook dependencies in a file, with a specific verb and resource. It details the specific categories of findings (missing dependencies, unnecessary dependencies, async callbacks in useEffect, cleanup functions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_hook_usages or analyze_file.

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 provides clear context by stating it is 'Essential for catching stale closure bugs,' implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, such as trace_state_updates for state flow analysis.

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