Code Buddy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'provide statistics' but doesn't specify what kind (e.g., lines of code, complexity metrics), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance or permission considerations. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity of code analysis and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, how analysis is performed, or any limitations (e.g., supported languages). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'filepath' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on file format expectations or analysis scope. With high schema coverage, 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 'Analyze code file and provide statistics' states a clear verb ('analyze') and resource ('code file'), but it's vague about what 'analyze' entails and what 'statistics' means. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'lint_code' or 'format_code', which might also analyze code in different ways.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'lint_code' (likely for code quality checks) and 'get_functions' (likely for extracting function info), there's no indication of what makes 'analyze_code' different or when it's the appropriate choice.

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