analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the tool is known to be safe and repeatable. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns a summary inline, full details via a resource URI, and warns that file paths are server-internal. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits mention of auto_reindex's potential side effect, which is acceptable given its presence in the schema.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides valuable information: the operation, the output summary, and a critical usage caveat about paths. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential output behavior and provides a pointer to full details. The schema handles parameter documentation, and annotations cover safety, so the description completes the picture without needing an output schema.

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 does not describe the auto_reindex parameter, but the input schema already provides a complete description ('Auto re-index if stale (default: true)') with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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 function: 'Find duplicate code (verified via graph isomorphism).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like write, edit, and suppress, which have unrelated purposes. The title reinforces this, and the mention of graph isomorphism adds specificity.

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 use case (duplicate code analysis) and provides guidance on how to consume the output (use the astrograph resource URI for full details, not server-internal paths). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this or compare to alternatives, though no obvious sibling overlaps exist.

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