analyze_terraform_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the fact that extraction is 'dynamic' but does not reveal important traits such as whether the tool is read-only, requires a local Terraform installation, accesses cloud APIs, or has limitations. This leaves significant gaps about side effects and operational 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information about the tool's purpose and method.

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 tool has moderate complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description captures the core purpose but omits details about expected output format, error scenarios, or operational requirements. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a tool that processes user-supplied project paths.

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% for the single parameter ('Path to the project directory'). The description does not add details about parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it also does not conflict with or duplicate schema information. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('Terraform project') with a defined goal ('identify AWS services used'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'analyze_cdk_project' by explicitly targeting Terraform rather than CDK.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with 'analyze_cdk_project' or other siblings. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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