Analyze Project Test Placement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the analysis is 'project-aware' and operates 'from a project-audits artifact', providing some context beyond annotations, but it does not elaborate on the analysis's nature or potential side effects.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Analyze', and contains no filler 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not describe the return value or the nature of the analysis output. It also leaves 'project-aware test placement' undefined. Given the analytical nature of the tool, this is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 projectAudits described as 'A project-audits/v1 artifact.' The tool description repeats this by saying 'from a project-audits artifact', adding no further semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'analyze' and identifies the resource as a 'project-audits artifact'. The phrase 'project-aware' clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'analyze_test_placement', which lacks the project-aware qualifier.

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 the tool should be used when a project-audits artifact is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like analyze_test_placement or generate_project_test_plan, nor does it provide exclusions.

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