Analyze project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: every flagged item carries a human-readable reason. No contradiction; description enriches understanding 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action ('Diagnose a network for cleanup') and efficiently lists outputs and behavioral notes.

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 output schema present and annotations, the description adds all necessary context: what the tool does, what it returns, how it behaves (read-only, conservative). No gaps remain.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 uses specific verbs ('Diagnose', 'report') and lists concrete outputs (dead operators, broken dependencies, orphan COMPs, dependency map). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming complements (plan_visual, snapshot_td_graph).

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?

Explicitly states it is 'Read-only and conservative', provides context for when to use (cleanup diagnosis), and names alternatives that complement it ('Complements plan_visual...'). This gives clear guidance on selection.

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