build_analyze_bloat

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

Absent annotations, the description only lists what it finds but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For an analysis tool, this is minimal 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?

The description is a single efficient sentence listing bloat types, no fluff. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet list).

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what users get back (e.g., a report). It lacks details about the output format or how results are presented, leaving some gaps.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since there are none to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and lists concrete types of bloat (duplicates, huge files >10MB, Resources/ abuse, unoptimized textures), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like assets_find_orphans or build_check_compliance.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the description implies it should be used for identifying bloat in a build. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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