Analyze a Swift project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only analysis action through the verb 'Produce' and states it returns an overview and summary counts, which is transparent about its non-mutating nature. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it does not modify the project or any potential prerequisites, but the intent is clear.

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 concise yet informative, front-loading the purpose and then adding usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. The structure flows from 'what it does' to 'when to use it', making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when to call the tool and what to expect in return. It lists the categories of findings and the usage strategy. While it doesn't detail the exact output format, there is no output schema, and the description gives enough for an agent to make an informed call. It could mention potential performance implications or prerequisites, but for a relatively simple overview tool, this is adequate.

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 covers the single 'path' parameter at 100%, describing it as an absolute path to the project root. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details about this parameter, relying entirely on the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 tool's function with specific deliverables (file/line counts, deployment target, Swift tools version, frameworks, test existence) and a summary of findings across named rule categories. It distinguishes itself from the focused sibling tools by framing itself as an initial overview tool.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool first when unfamiliar with a codebase, and then to run focused tools on categories with findings. This directly contrasts with the sibling review tools, providing clear guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives.

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