analyze_code

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 only states 'Returns a detailed report,' which is minimal. It does not disclose whether the tool executes code, what kind of issues it detects, if it requires network access, or any limitations or side effects.

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 is neither verbose nor under-specified. It communicates the core purpose and return type with zero wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description must clarify the return value. 'Detailed report' is vague and does not convey the structure or content of the report. The schema covers parameters well, but the lack of behavioral detail and return format leaves gaps.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (code and language) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('code') with clear scope ('quality, complexity, and potential issues'). This clearly distinguishes analyze_code from the provided sibling tools (GitHub operations, task creation, file reads).

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 gives clear context for use (when you want a code quality/complexity analysis), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. However, the sibling tools are so different that the use case is obvious, and no exclusions are needed.

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