analyze_async_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool detects but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what it returns (e.g., a report, a list of issues), or whether it modifies the project. The verb 'Detect' implies analysis, but without explicit confirmation, the agent cannot be certain of side effects or output format.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose with specific examples. It contains no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to explaining the tool's function.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool detects but omits details about the return format, whether the analysis is non-destructive, and any prerequisites or limitations. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, additional context would improve agent confidence, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates the 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?

The schema fully documents the single parameter (projectPath) with a clear description and minimal length constraint. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter format, validation, or usage nuances, so it matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('async performance issues'), and enumerates concrete examples (await in loops, sequential awaits, blocking operations). This distinguishes it from sibling analyzers like analyze_database_queries or analyze_indexes, which target different problem domains.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection. While the name implies a focus on async patterns, the absence of any comparative context leaves the agent to infer usage, which may lead to choosing the wrong analyzer.

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