explain_emission_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It notably reveals that the tool does not run the compiler, a key behavioral trait, and discloses the output contents (JS, .d.ts, source map paths). It could add details about error handling or side effects but is substantially transparent.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the action and followed by targeted use-case examples. Every word contributes.

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 one parameter and no output schema, but the description adequately conveys purpose, output elements, and use cases. It stops short of specifying the exact return format or how to interpret the tree, but is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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% with a clear parameter description for configPath. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Build a virtual tree') and resource ('TypeScript emission structure'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on output file paths and compiler behavior without executing the compiler.

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 gives explicit context for when the tool is useful ('predict where output files will land or debug rootDir/outDir misconfigurations'), but does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with alternatives, missing the top-tier 'when-not' guidance.

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