analyze_memory_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does and what it returns, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, limitations (e.g., code size constraints), analysis depth, or whether it requires specific compiler standards or dependencies.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return value. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, though the Chinese language structure adds some complexity for non-Chinese speaking agents. The information is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning adequately. However, it lacks important context about the tool's capabilities, limitations, and behavioral characteristics that would help an agent use it effectively, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'code' as '要分析的 C++ 代码' (C++ code to analyze), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal title 'Code'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides adequate semantic clarification for the tool's single input.

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 specific action ('分析' - analyze) and target resource ('C++ 代码中的内存安全问题' - memory safety issues in C++ code). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on memory safety rather than const correctness, include guards, naming conventions, or modern C++ suggestions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of when this analysis is appropriate versus other code analysis tools, what types of C++ code it handles best, or any prerequisites for usage.

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