Explain Shared Chunks

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

Even with no annotations, the description conveys that this is a read-only analysis tool through 'Show' and 'reports'. It also discloses the exact computation applied to each package's size metrics and the need for prior data-loading calls. It does not mention error behavior or explicit side-effect absence, but the read-only framing is strong.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by output metric details, then the prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 no output schema, the description adequately defines what each result reports and names the required prior steps. It does not fully describe result ordering or response shape, but the core invocation needs and output expectations are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents buildId and limit, including the default and maximum for limit. The description does not add extra meaning for these parameters, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a precise resource ('which npm packages and app code dominate the shared chunks loaded by many routes'). It clearly states the analytical goal, identifying what bloats common bundles, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shared_chunks.

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 clear context: use this to attribute shared-chunk bloat to packages and app code. It also states the prerequisite ('Requires load_build_stats and load_webpack_stats first'), which is important invocation guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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