codix.project.analyze

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the analysis action and outputs. It does not mention side effects, permissions, dependencies, or whether the tool modifies state. This leaves the agent with little insight into execution behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the core purpose without redundant details. Every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's function.

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?

Despite a clear purpose, the tool lacks context for parameter usage, return structure, and behavioral nuances. With no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently with correct parameters.

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 only hints at the 'brief' parameter by saying 'short project brief'. It does not explain the 'mustHave' or 'constraints' arrays, leaving 2 of 3 parameters semantically unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Analyze'), the resource ('a short project brief'), and the outputs ('type, modules, risks, milestones and Smart Context chunks'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on other tasks like generating prompts or recommending stacks.

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 implies usage when a project brief needs analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is only implied.

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