jsdoc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, and behavioral traits. It only states 'JSDoc operations' and action names; it does not mention whether generate writes files, whether checks are read-only, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates files.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists actions compactly. It is efficient, though it could perhaps add a bit more context without bloating, but as written it is free of 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate but does not. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or usage context for the three actions. For a tool with multiple modes, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all parameters with descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only repeats the action list, which adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, such as the purpose of path or maxDiagnostics. Thus, baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as handling JSDoc operations and enumerates three specific actions (check_consistency, check_types, generate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools by domain, though it does not elaborate on what each action does beyond the action names.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to choose one action over another. It only lists actions without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action names.

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