Analyze a CRUMB design semantically

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the default view is a bounded summary, that components/connections use opaque cursors for pagination, and that embedded firmware/geometry require explicit opt-in. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in annotations, enhancing transparency.

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 three sentences, each packed with specific information: what is recognized, the default/pagination behavior, and opt-in requirements. No filler or repetition; it is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description covers the most important behavioral aspects, and an output schema exists so return values are not required. Missing context on topologyMode and expectedProjectDigest usage, but overall the description provides a solid context for successful use.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining key parameters: 'summary default' and 'opaque cursors' clarify view and cursor; 'require explicit opt-in' clarifies includeGeometry/includeSourceCode. However, it does not explain topologyMode or limit, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool's purpose: to analyze a CRUMB design semantically. Description specifies what it recognizes (version-pinned component parameters, terminal attachments, inferred connection groups), and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like crumb_inspect_design (raw inspection) and crumb_validate_design (validation).

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 when this tool is useful (semantic analysis of component parameters, connections) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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