Analyze repository (batch / LLM-safe)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing token budgeting, severity ordering, and cursor-based pagination, which are not visible from annotations alone. This goes beyond schema parameter descriptions and helps the agent anticipate the tool's output characteristics.

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 compact: two sentences capture the main purpose and the crucial pagination mechanism. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, and no unnecessary details or repetition inflate the length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It adequately conveys the primary function, token budget, ordering, and resume behavior, which are the key operational aspects. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance on choosing this tool over sibling analysis tools, but given the schema and annotation coverage, the description remains sufficiently complete for a 7-parameter tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already provides; it simply reflects the overall token-budget and pagination behavior. No additional syntax, format, or edge-case details are given, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 action (analyse a repository path) and its specific output (token-budgeted, paginated violations) with a memorable detail (highest-severity first). The title adds 'batch / LLM-safe,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like analyze_repository without needing to name them.

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 implies the intended use case ('designed for LLM context windows') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as analyze_repository or analyze_batch_summary. It lacks any exclusion criteria or direct mention of alternative tools, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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