analyze_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the operation (executes the 14-phase pipeline), the scope (indexed Swift repository), and the return type (Markdown), which is strong disclosure for a read-only analysis tool. It doesn't mention latency or cost, but no side effects or auth concerns are implied.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact enumeration of the pipeline phases and a one-line return format. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no 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?

The description is complete for a zero-parameter aggregate tool: it names all 14 analysis phases and the Markdown output format. It could add explicit guidance about when a single metric tool should be preferred, but this is a modest gap and the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameters, and there is no missing parameter semantics to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a full structural analysis of the indexed Swift repository') and enumerates the 14-phase pipeline, making the aggregate nature clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like public_api or centrality, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'full structural analysis' implies this is the umbrella tool for comprehensive results rather than individual metric tools, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives like public_api or type_hierarchy are not mentioned, so the agent must infer routing from the phase list.

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