analyze_config

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds only the audited formats and check names, and says nothing about how secrets are reported (redacted vs raw), how the capped issue list is ordered, or what happens when no config file matches.

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?

A single front-loaded line with zero filler: verb, resource, formats, and check categories in one sentence. It is arguably clipped to the point of under-specification, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not describe the shape of the audit report (severity grouping, issue locations, how many issues are returned). For an audit tool whose whole value is the report, that leaves a real gap.

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%, so every parameter and its defaults (project default: active, max_issues default 10, 0 = unlimited) is already documented in the schema. The description names three of the five check values but omits 'loaders' and 'schema', adding no semantics 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?

States a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('config files') and narrows scope with concrete file formats (.env/.yaml/.toml/.json) and three check categories. It reads clearly apart from file-read siblings like read_lines or get_env_usage, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_env_usage or analyze_docker. The agent must infer that this is the config-audit entry point purely from the name and file extensions.

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