foundation_analyze_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context about additive traces, route elimination, and deliberate abstention. It also mentions the analysis is deterministic and uses specific checks, going beyond the annotation basics.

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 three sentences and each sentence carries meaningful information about purpose, traces, and side effects. It is appropriately front-loaded and avoids redundant statements, though the phrasing is dense with technical terms.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of four parameters, the description leaves gaps: no explanation of the return value (beyond proposal/abstention), no parameter details, and no explicit usage guidance. However, it covers the high-level behavior and safety profile reasonably.

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 only 25% (only project_root has a description). The description does not mention or explain any of the four parameters (requirement, project_diff, project_root, project_summary), leaving their semantics mostly undocumented. It fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool proposes or deliberately abstains from a project Foundation using specific checks. It distinguishes itself by noting it does not write project state, implying a read-only analysis. Sibling differentiation is implicit via the 'Does not write' contrast, but no explicit alternative names are given.

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 implies the tool is used for Foundation decision-making with the MCP's internal model, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like foundation_commit or foundation_scan_changes. No exclusions are stated, so usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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