analyze_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that using path means rescanning occurs (implying cost), and mentions sessionId to avoid rescanning, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe return format, performance cost, or what 'findings' means precisely. For a read-only analysis tool without annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the key usage tip about sessionId. Every clause earns 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?

Three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 23 siblings. The description conveys the core purpose and the sessionId-vs-path tradeoff but leaves gaps: what does 'findings' mean, what format do results come in, what does limit control, and what happens if neither sessionId nor path is provided. Given the complexity (a documentation coverage analysis tool), more detail would help.

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 description coverage is 0%, so baseline is 3 and the description should compensate, but it doesn't. The description mentions sessionId and path but doesn't explain the limit parameter at all. It implies sessionId and path are mutually exclusive inputs but doesn't spell this out. Marginal value added over the schema.

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 what it does: returns widget/class doc ratios, README presence, and findings from a review_project session or path. The verb 'analyze' plus the specific resource (documentation coverage) is reasonably specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like analyze_code_quality or analyze_architecture, but the 'documentation coverage view' frame is clear enough.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: 'Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning.' This establishes when to use sessionId vs path. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but with 23 siblings, the documentation-coverage-specific scope implicitly separates it from code quality, testing, complexity, and architecture analysis tools.

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