Analyze VBA

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: no Office installation, no code execution, and host-specific object-model judging. These details materially inform an agent about side effects, environment requirements, and analysis semantics.

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?

Five dense sentences deliver the core operation, execution constraints, host-model nuance, and an actionable severity policy. There is no filler, repetition, or fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape is already covered. The description supplies the remaining operational context an agent needs: safety, non-execution, host coupling, and the error-as-build-failure policy. This is complete for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 100%, so file_path, module_name, and min_severity are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general scope 'every VBA module', so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Runs static analysis over every VBA module in an Office file', and enumerates the returned problem fields (module, line, column, code, message). It also differentiates itself from execution/run tools by stating it 'runs nothing' and needs no Office installation.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this after every VBA change and treat any problem at error severity as a build failure'. This provides clear context and policy, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it versus tools like xlide_compile_check or xlide_validate_project, so it falls just short of a 5.

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