analyze_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the phases (Discovery→Indexing→Analysis→Enrichment→Validation), explains the effect of each option (force re-analyzes, index_only skips detailed analysis), and mentions the return type (summary with counts/timing). This provides thorough behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by necessary context, bullet-pointed options, and phases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's process, return value, and usage context. It covers the multi-phase analysis and provides a tip for verification, making it complete for an agent to understand and use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose and effects of each parameter: service for faster multi-service analysis, force for re-analysis after code changes, index_only for fast module-only mode.

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 builds a code graph by analyzing source code, using specific verbs like 'Build' and 'analyze'. It explicitly says it is required before using query tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools that query the graph.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'REQUIRED before using query tools. Without analysis, the graph is empty.' It also provides guidance on options and a tip to verify with get_stats, making usage clear and well-defined.

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