Get Shared Chunks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it clearly states the core behavior: ranking shared chunks and showing dependent routes. It would benefit from mentioning the no-buildId listing mode, but the primary behavioral contract is transparent and non-mutating.

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?

A single sentence conveys action, scope, and expected result with no redundant phrasing. The key verb and object are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema covers how to invoke it: it names the prerequisite state, the result shape, and both parameters. A small gap is that the description's 'loaded build' framing does not acknowledge the omit-buildId mode, but the schema fills this in.

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 both limit and buildId already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action ('Rank'), targets a concrete resource ('heaviest shared chunks'), and states the derived output ('show which routes depend on them'). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_largest_routes, which targets routes rather than chunks, and explain_shared_chunks, which is about explanation rather than ranking.

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 phrase 'in a loaded Next.js build' implies that load_build_stats should be run first, which is useful context. However, the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool over explain_shared_chunks, get_largest_routes, or suggest_optimizations, and it leaves the omit-buildId behavior to the schema.

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