analyze_api

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'analyze' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it has side effects, or any permission requirements. This leaves the tool's behavior opaque.

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, direct sentence with no filler words. It effectively states the tool's primary function without unnecessary elaboration, earning its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the analysis produces or what actions are performed. It does not, leaving the tool's output and behavior undefined. Even for a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'path' as 'Directory to scan' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Analyze API endpoints in the project' uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('API endpoints'), making its core function clear. It is distinguishable from broader siblings like 'analyze_project' because it focuses specifically on API endpoints, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'analyze_project', 'validate_api_structure', or 'review_security'. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where alternative tools would be preferred.

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