analyze_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral facts: it runs analysis without generating code and is faster than a build. It also implies a read-only validation behavior via 'validate edits'. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or return format, leaving minor uncertainty.

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 sentences that efficiently communicate the core function, a key constraint (no code generation), a comparative advantage (faster than build), and a concrete use case (validate edits). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential information needed to call it correctly: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from siblings. Missing details like return format are minor because the tool's simplicity and usage direction suffice.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the instructions. Schema description coverage is trivially 100% and there are no parameters to document, so the description need not address parameter details.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a syntax/semantic analysis of the project'. It explicitly says it does not generate code, which distinguishes it from build_project and other code-generation siblings. The 'Faster than a build' comparison further clarifies its role versus a build.

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 explicitly says 'use it to validate edits' and notes it is faster than a build, offering a clear condition for when to choose it. This gives an agent a direct reason to pick this tool over the alternative build_project, and even implies when not to use it (when code generation is needed).

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