Analyze a project

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool works with 'bounded local evidence' and produces confidence levels, evidence paths, readiness, and safety details. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and provides useful insight into the tool's operation and outputs.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output aspects without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the inference scope and the types of outputs (confidence, evidence paths, readiness, safety details). However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is a notable gap given there is no output schema.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'path' with 100% coverage, including its meaning ('Absolute path inside an approved root'). The description does not add further parameter-specific detail, so it meets the baseline for schema-dominated parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Infer' and identifies the resource as 'project purpose and capabilities' with a clear scope ('from bounded local evidence'). It also lists the output dimensions (confidence, evidence paths, readiness, safety details), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like summarize_project or read_project_file.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use analyze_project versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond what the schema already states about the path. Usage must be inferred from the purpose alone.

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