analyze_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'safely retains the last valid cache on failure'. It also specifies the data source ('live Studio evidence'), which adds meaningful context. It doesn't cover all potential side effects, but the safety note improves transparency beyond a minimal statement.

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, focused sentence with a clear prefix. Every word adds value: the entry-point flag, the action, the data source, and the safety behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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 zero-param tool, the description conveys the core function, a safety detail, and its entry-point role, making it sufficient for selecting the tool. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or any prerequisites, which would be helpful but not critical given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema fully documents this (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and per the rubric, 0-param tools receive a baseline score of 4.

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 a specific action ('Rebuilds') and resource ('versioned project index'), and the '(RECOMMENDED ENTRY POINT)' flag differentiates it as the intended first tool to invoke among siblings. This gives the agent a precise understanding of what the tool does and its role.

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 signals when to use the tool with '(RECOMMENDED ENTRY POINT)', providing clear entry context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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