sonar_remedy_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. Words like 'regenerate' and 'publish' hint at side effects, but it does not state whether existing results are overwritten, whether publishing is external and irreversible, whether permissions are required, or whether execution is long-running.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It earns its place and wastes no words.

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?

With five parameters, no parameter documentation, no output schema, no annotations, and eleven siblings, this description is far too sparse. It cannot support safe, correct invocation because it omits parameter semantics, side-effect details, return behavior, and tool-selection 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about repo, branch, script, execute, or project. The agent is left to guess what each parameter means, making correct invocation largely a matter of luck.

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 states a clear action ('Run the local pipeline') and outcome ('regenerate+publish Sonar results'), so an agent can understand the core function. However, it does not meaningfully distinguish the tool from siblings like sonar_remedy_run or sonar_remedy_run_all.

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 the eleven sibling tools. It names no alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use when results are stale' or 'use for local-only analysis'.

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