analyze_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'found: false' if the function is not discovered, offering some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be improved with bullet points for readability, but it avoids unnecessary words and is efficiently written.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it analyzes, when to use it, and a note on return (found: false). It lacks explicit output structure details but covers core functionality well.

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 has one parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's 'Function name to analyze' but provides usage context. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and this description meets it without adding extra clarity on 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes a single named function or Lambda handler for infrastructure issues, listing specific checks (tables, query methods, queue publishing, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_lambda_overview) by focusing on detailed analysis with actionable findings.

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 explicitly advises to call this tool before writing or reviewing a Lambda handler, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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