parse_cobol_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states parsing and extraction but omits side effects, authentication requirements (api_key is unexplained), and whether the tool modifies anything or is read-only. The security and behavioral context is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it omits important details about parameters and usage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two simple parameters, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose and outputs but misses critical context about the api_key parameter and usage constraints. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0% and the description offers no explanation for either parameter. The required 'source_code' is implied but not explicitly linked; the optional 'api_key' is completely unexplained. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema field names.

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 tool's function: parsing a COBOL source file. It lists specific extraction targets (divisions, paragraphs, file IO, SQL/CICS, copybooks, complexity), making the purpose concrete. The sibling tools have distinct purposes (estimation, test generation, etc.), so differentiation is clear.

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 implies use when parsing COBOL code, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., for analyzing complexity vs. using estimate_migration_complexity). No scenarios, prerequisites, or limitations are mentioned.

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