analyze_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs static analysis but does not describe what happens during execution (e.g., whether it modifies the file, requires network access, has rate limits, or outputs results to a log). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 the complexity of static analysis (which can involve detailed outputs and potential side effects), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations to clarify behavior, no output schema to explain return values, and the description lacks details on execution context (e.g., dependencies, error handling). For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more operational context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'filePath' documented as 'Path to the source file to analyze.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as file format requirements or path resolution rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately defines the parameter.

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 specific action ('analyzes') and resource ('a source file'), specifying the tool used ('Xcode's static analyzer') and the goal ('for potential issues'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_file' (which reads content) or 'run_tests' (which executes tests) by focusing on static analysis rather than execution or simple I/O.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requires Xcode installation), exclusions (e.g., not for binary files), or comparisons to siblings like 'build_project' (which might include analysis) or 'run_lldb' (for dynamic analysis). Usage is implied only by the action itself.

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