batch_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions aggregation and token savings but omits side effects (e.g., read-only nature), permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling. The lack of transparency for a batch operation is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function, the second highlights benefits. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool has a nested options object with many subfields (analysisType, backend, etc.) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return format, how aggregation works, or the significance of sub-options. For a tool of this complexity, the description is too brief and leaves important gaps.

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% (moderate). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., filePatterns, question, options). With partial schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: analyzing multiple files using glob patterns with aggregated findings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_file (single file) and batch_modify (modification) by emphasizing batch analysis and token savings.

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 implies usage for multi-file analysis with token savings, but does not explicitly specify when to use it over alternatives like analyze_file or ask. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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