Analyze zen violations (v2)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description's phrase 'stricter request-quality guardrails' hints at validation but is ambiguous; 'richer telemetry metadata' relates to output not behavior. It adds no concrete behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action. It is not excessively verbose, but the trailing qualifiers 'stricter request-quality guardrails and richer telemetry metadata' are vague and could be considered wasted words, preventing a perfect score.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema reduces the need to explain basic behavior and return format. However, the description lacks any usage guidance, and the vague qualifiers do not clarify when to use this tool or what distinguishes it in practice. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning or clarify the 'project_as' field or 'perspective' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 action and resource: 'Analyze a code snippet against zen rules.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_repository and analyze_batch by focusing on a single snippet. The added qualifiers 'stricter request-quality guardrails and richer telemetry metadata' are vague and not directly about purpose, but they don't obscure it.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives like analyze_repository for broader scope, nor does it provide context for choosing this tool over siblings. The usage is only implied by the verb and the resource.

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