analyze_code_deep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs deep AST analysis but does not mention whether it is read-only, what side effects it has, what 'mode: real' means, or what the output looks like. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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, making it highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose 'Deep AST analysis'. However, the '[mode: real]' prefix is unexplained and adds ambiguity without earning its place.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what results are returned, how this deep analysis relates to other analysis tools, or what 'hooks' and 'issues' specifically refer to. The description is too sparse for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. 'platform' and 'projectPath' are somewhat self-explanatory by name, but the description fails to clarify how 'platform' affects the analysis or why it is optional. The tool description provides no semantic enrichment beyond the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as performing deep AST analysis and enumerates analysis targets (functions, complexity, hooks, issues). This goes beyond a tautology of the tool name and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_app_structure, though the meaning of 'issues' is vague.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_app_structure or detect_logic_errors. The cryptic '[mode: real]' prefix hints at a mode distinction but is not explained, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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