Analyze Repository

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating it 'Detect and audit all project roots once, then return the complete deterministic summary...' This communicates the one-time detection scope, deterministic output, and the exact list of return sections. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent annotations; it complements them with concrete behavior details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case, and dense with useful information. Every phrase earns its place—'Start here', 'Detect and audit all project roots once', the output list, and the alternative preference. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a high-level orchestration tool with no output schema, the description enumerates all expected outputs (summary, blockers, findings, ranking, plan, execution hints, verification commands, stats) and clarifies the scope. It also provides the decision context relative to audit_repo, making the tool's role complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (repoRoot, changedPaths, excludeProjectRoots, and the nested goTarget properties), so the description is not required to elaborate. The description adds no direct parameter semantics beyond implying the repoRoot and excludeProjectRoots usage, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('repository'), and clearly positions it as the entry point for unfamiliar repositories or general test-architecture review. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool audit_repo by prescribing when to prefer each, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage criteria: 'Start here for an unfamiliar repository or a general test-architecture review' and directly advises against using it over audit_repo when one project root and adapter are explicitly selected. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with a named alternative.

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