vibemap_analyze_codebase

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

Describes persistence behavior beyond annotations: features are persisted, user stories and criteria are not. Mentions return value (sessionId) and polling. No contradiction with 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?

Single concise paragraph with front-loaded main action. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema, but description explicitly states returns sessionId. Covers the full workflow: scan, poll, then create user stories/criteria. Sufficient for agent to understand purpose and follow-up steps.

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 covers 4 parameters with descriptions for 2 (50%). Description adds context for localPath ('local codebase') and projectId, but does not elaborate on depth or taskTitle beyond their defaults. Adequate but not excellent.

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?

Clearly states the tool scans a local codebase and submits to VibeMap for reverse engineering, specifying that FEATURES persist but user stories and criteria do not. Distinguishes from siblings by naming specific tools for follow-up actions.

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?

Explicitly instructs to poll status after feature generation and then use vibemap_create_user_story and vibemap_create_acceptance_criterion. Provides clear workflow guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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