analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses that work is parallelized across multiple upstream APIs and that the call may take 10-15s, which is exactly the kind of latency expectation an agent needs for timeouts. It stops short of covering auth requirements or how partial failures from any one upstream are reported.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by usage sequencing, input format, latency warning, and an example — each sentence contributes a distinct fact with no repetition. Dense but not padded.

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 one-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, sequencing, input format, and latency. It omits any indication of the shape or sections of the returned analysis, which is the one remaining thing an agent would want before calling.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by restating accepted input forms and giving a concrete invocation example (analyze(repository='sst/opencode')) that makes the string format unambiguous. It doesn't add validation or edge-case semantics for 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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what is aggregated (GitHub metadata, SearchCode quality, DeepWiki architecture, CodeWiki sections) in a single call. It also positions itself against siblings by naming the 'surgical wiki/searchcode calls' it replaces, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it — 'Start here for unfamiliar repos before surgical wiki/searchcode calls' — which names both the trigger condition and the alternatives. The only gap is no explicit when-not, but the sequencing guidance is stronger than most tools provide.

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