lint_rxjs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds value by disclosing it is a regex-based best-effort analysis without ESLint runtime, and that type-info-required rules use heuristics leading to potential false positives/negatives. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether results are structured or plain text), which is notable given no output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key characteristic (regex-based). It then provides supporting details in a logical order: derived from plugin, specific checks, limitations, and framework support. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters but no output schema. While the description covers the tool's limitations and framework support, it does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. This omission, given the importance of understanding the analysis output, leaves the description somewhat incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions framework-specific rules (tying to framework parameter) and heuristics for type-info-required rules (related to rules parameter), but these are implied from the schema or context.

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 lints RxJS code snippets using regex, lists specific issues it checks (nested subscribes, memory leaks, deprecated patterns), and mentions multiple frameworks. This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_operators or detect_memory_leak.

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 does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for general RxJS linting but lacks 'when not to use' guidance. The note about heuristics and false positives provides some limitation context but is not a clear alternative recommendation.

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