find_spurious_renders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains what the tool detects (wasted renders from unstable references), what it returns (component name, counts, wasted milliseconds), and implies read-only analysis of a profiler export. Lacks explicit side-effect or safety declarations, but the behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Two sentences convey purpose, cause, return values, and intended use without waste. Information is front-loaded: the core function first, then outputs and guidance.

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 fairly simple diagnostic tool with good schema descriptions, the description is complete. It covers what, why, return data, and when to use it. No output schema, but the description explicitly lists the return fields, eliminating ambiguity.

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% since both profile_path and min_render_count already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no param-specific meaning, but the schema fully covers semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool finds React components that re-rendered without meaningful changes (spurious renders), specifying a distinct purpose from siblings like get_hottest_components or trace_render_cascade. It also names the specific outputs (component name, render counts), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 directs the agent to use this tool to identify high-ROI targets for React.memo, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over similar profiling tools.

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