analyze_memory_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool analyzes for issues like memory leaks and dangling pointers, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as analysis depth, performance implications, error handling, or output format specifics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return details into the main statement, but it's efficient overall.

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 tool's complexity (analyzing code for safety issues), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return types but lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'code' parameter is C++ code to analyze, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't elaborate on format, size limits, or preprocessing needs. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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's purpose: analyzing C++ code for memory safety issues. It specifies the verb 'analyze' and resource 'C++ code', making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_const_correctness' or 'suggest_modern_cpp', which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'check_const_correctness' or 'suggest_modern_cpp', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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