analyze_operators

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds value by specifying what the analysis covers (creation functions, operators, performance patterns, best practices), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or output format, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying 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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing code with multiple aspects), annotations provide safety info, but there's no output schema to explain return values. The description covers analysis scope but lacks details on output format or error cases. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Given the high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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's purpose: analyzing RxJS code for creation functions, operators, performance patterns, and best practices. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'RxJS code', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_memory_leak' or 'suggest_pattern', which might have overlapping analysis functions.

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 like 'detect_memory_leak' or 'suggest_pattern'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid RxJS code, or exclusions, like not handling non-RxJS JavaScript. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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