understand_code

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar. The description adds that the tool uses AI and static analysis, which hints at potential external dependencies or analysis methodology. However, it does not disclose specifics like rate limits, cost, or output format, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning: 'Analyze', 'code', the three focus areas, and the method. No redundancy or 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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify expected outputs or limitations. It does not mention what the analysis returns or any constraints on input size. The tool's purpose is clear, but for a tool with multiple enums and no output schema, this is only minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does partially by mentioning 'structure/business/security', echoing the focus enum values, and 'AI' hinting at aiMode. However, it does not explain the semantics of the code parameter or the exact role of aiMode (auto/required/off), so gaps remain.

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 analyzes code for structure, business logic, and security, using AI and static analysis. This distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like search_in_scripts, though it does not name alternatives. The verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'code' are specific, but the coverage of three vague aspects keeps it from a 5.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for understanding code but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention sibling tools. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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