find_render_triggers

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and safety, but it does not state whether the tool modifies files or requires specific permissions. It only mentions output details like memoization status and suggestions, leaving behavioral traits largely unspecified.

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 the core action, and wastes no words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and what it returns, but given no output schema and moderate complexity, it lacks details on failure modes, prerequisites, or the exact nature of the analysis. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema documents all four parameters with clear descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter context. Baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 re-render triggers and lists specific categories (props, state, context, hooks). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_hook_deps by covering all trigger types and including memoization and optimization advice.

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 indicates a clear use case: understanding re-render causes without reading component internals. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like trace_state_updates or analyze_hook_deps, nor does it mention exclusions.

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