run_code_analyzer

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description describes only analysis and never discloses side effects (e.g., outputFile writes) or that engines/config files on disk can be touched. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still adds almost no behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite following immediately. Nothing is wasted.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema and destructive/open-world annotations, the description omits return format, side effects, and supported engines. The rule-selector routing is helpful but only partially covers what an agent needs before invoking it.

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 top-level 'input' object has no schema description (0% coverage at the parameter level), yet the nested properties are documented in the schema. The description adds value only for ruleSelector by pointing to list_code_analyzer_rules for valid values; target, workspace, severity, configFile and outputFile are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyze code') plus the scope of analysis ('quality and security issues'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_code_analyzer_rules or scanner_run, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with scanner_run.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: run list_code_analyzer_rules first to pick rules for ruleSelector. It does not state when-not to use it or how it differs from scanner_run/scanner_run_dfa, but the ordering guidance is concrete and actionable.

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