Analisar métodos de um arquivo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool reads a file, scans methods/functions, and returns analysis, and it discloses the requirement of an API key. It implies read-only behavior but could mention whether it modifies files or any side effects, though the read/return phrasing makes this largely clear.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key behavior and output aspects without excessive verbosity. The list of analysis dimensions is dense but still readable. Slight room for improvement by breaking into separate sentences for clarity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites (API key), and the nature of its output. Since an output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not detail return values. For a single-parameter analysis tool, this is reasonably complete and resolves most selection ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100% and includes a description for 'path'. The tool description reinforces that the path refers to a file and adds the file-method-analysis context, but it does not add new parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Lê um arquivo, faz varredura em todos os métodos/funções') and specific resource (file methods). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_file or generate_tests by focusing on detailed method analysis with a defined set of output criteria.

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 usage context—when you need method-level analysis of a file—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. It does provide a prerequisite (API key) which adds some guidance.

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