analyze_data_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Though it implies a read-only analysis, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies code, requires permissions, or has side effects. This lack of explicit safety information is a gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concrete usage hint. Every word contributes value; no fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the returned data (variables declared, read, written, etc.) and provides a use case. This is sufficient for a tool with only three straightforward parameters. Minor omissions: no mention of performance or error cases.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining the 1-based line numbering or file path format). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'data flow within a range of statements in a C# method'. It lists specific outputs (variables declared, read, written, etc.), making the tool's purpose distinct. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is specific enough.

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 says 'Useful for understanding variable lifecycle before extracting code', which provides implicit guidance on when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives, when-not-to-use scenarios, or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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