analyze_config

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or output format. Minimal behavioral context beyond the check types.

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?

Single sentence with key information: action, file types, and check types. No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more. It lists checks but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues, counts). Adequate for a simple audit tool but leaves gaps about output and behavior.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds some context (e.g., 'Raise for full audit' for max_issues, default for project) but does not elaborate on the meaning of each check beyond enum names. Additional value is marginal.

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?

Clearly states the action (audit) and resource (config files of specific types .env/.yaml/.toml/.json) and specific check types (duplicates, secrets, orphans). Differentiates from siblings as no other tool targets config file auditing.

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?

Implies usage for config file auditing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_env_usage). No exclusions or context for selection.

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