Analyze repository — batch summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context by guaranteeing the output 'Always fits within a single LLM context window' and indicating the compact, top-5 nature of the result. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's practical impact.

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, front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by usage guidance. There is zero filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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, return values are already specified. The description covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral constraint (context window fit). It is complete enough for an agent to decide on invocation, though it could briefly mention what constitutes a 'hotspot' but that is not essential.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself fully documents all parameters, 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource/output: a compact project health score and top-5 hotspot files. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_batch' by positioning itself as a pre-pagination summary, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use this before analyze_batch to decide whether full pagination is needed.' This clearly positions it relative to a specific alternative and implies when the full version would be needed, giving actionable usage guidance.

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