analyze_infrastructure_code

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

Description lists compliance checks (data residency, encryption, etc.) but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or output format. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but covers only partial behavioral context.

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?

Two clear paragraphs with an Args list. Front-loaded purpose, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Description covers tool purpose and parameter semantics. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, it provides a solid baseline. Could better differentiate from many sibling tools but is largely sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by providing meaningful explanations for all parameters: code (IaC content), file_type (with possible values), file_path (optional for reporting), and context (optional). This adds semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes Bicep/Terraform/ARM code for GDPR compliance, specifying the resource types and compliance areas. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_application_code.

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 to use the tool (when analyzing IaC code for GDPR compliance) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or contrast with similar tools like analyze_application_code. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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