agy_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose and does not explain return types, side effects, permissions, or any limitations. Unlike tools with richer annotations, this provides minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose without wasted words. However, it omits crucial context that could fit in a few more phrases, so while efficient, it is somewhat under-specified.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what analysis results look like, how to interpret the response, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 67% (path and question are described, model is not). The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics and fails to compensate for the undocumented 'model' parameter. The schema descriptions are basic, and the description provides no additional context about parameter usage.

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 performs architectural analysis on files or folders using Antigravity, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_security_audit or agy_refactor. The verb 'perform' and resource 'files or folders' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing this over other analysis tools like agy_security_audit or agy_notebook_query.

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