evaluate_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that all 45 judges run on each file and cross-file analysis occurs, but omits details on whether the tool is read-only, data retention, rate limits, or side effects. The provided information is helpful but incomplete for a tool handling multiple files.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and outcome. Every word adds value; no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-file input, 45 judges, cross-file analysis) and lack of output schema, the description adequately outlines the scope. However, it omits what the output looks like (e.g., a report or findings list) and does not mention how results are returned. This leaves gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool and process results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'multiple files' but does not elaborate on config, context, or other parameters. No additional value beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: 'Submit multiple files for project-level analysis.' It specifies that all 45 judges evaluate each file and that cross-file architectural analysis detects issues like code duplication, inconsistent error handling, and dependency cycles. This contrasts with sibling tools that focus on single files or specific judges, making it easy to distinguish.

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 usage for comprehensive project analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like evaluate_batch, evaluate_code, or evaluate_file. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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