analysis_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool reads only structure ('without reading the full file') and explains the two operations. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid paths), permissions, or whether operations are strictly read-only, leaving gaps for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 well-organized with a short intro, operation list, and examples. The sentence 'Useful for understanding codebases quickly' is somewhat promotional but not harmful. It is longer than necessary but each section earns its place by clarifying usage.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what actions are available and how to invoke them. However, it does not describe the shape of the results (e.g., what the summary looks like, how imports are listed) or edge cases, so an agent may be uncertain about response format.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining what each operation does ('summarize: Get high-level structure', 'imports: List all imports') and by showing realistic examples of how operation and path combine. This goes beyond the bare schema enum and property names.

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 analyzes TypeScript/JavaScript files by extracting structure (classes, functions, imports) without reading the full file. It lists concrete operations ('summarize', 'imports') and provides examples, distinguishing it from the file I/O siblings (efs_read, efs_list).

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 says the tool is 'useful for understanding codebases quickly' and implies it is lighter than reading full files, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives like efs_read or efs_search. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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