analyze_app_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions '[mode: real]' and auto-detection of platform, which are useful behavioral traits, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. Given the lack of annotations and safety disclosure, this is insufficient.

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 sentence, efficient and free of fluff. It packs relevant information about the tool's mode and content. It is slightly under-specified, but it does not waste any words, earning a strong score.

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 moderately complex with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers only the core purpose and one parameter behavior, omitting details about depth levels, expected inputs, output format, and any limitations. This is not complete enough for an AI agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only addresses 'platform' by noting auto-detection when not provided, leaving 'depth' and 'projectPath' unexplained. This does not adequately compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 performs static analysis of a project, listing specific aspects like screens, components, APIs, and state. This is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as analyze_code_deep or diagnose_project, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only hint is 'static analysis,' which is implied rather than explicit.

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