optidev_code_analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'real-time' but does not describe return values, whether the tool makes any changes, or any side effects. There is no mention of output format or error conditions, leaving the agent with limited understanding of what to expect.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Real-time code analysis'). It contains no filler or redundant information, and the critical terms (performance, security, best practices) are immediately visible. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for understanding the tool's behavior. It explains what the tool analyzes but not what it returns, how the analysis is presented, or any limitations. For an agent to invoke and use the tool effectively, more detail about the response or usage context is needed.

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 schema descriptions cover all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond mentioning performance, security, and best practices, which aligns with the analysisType enum. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 identifies the tool as a code analyzer with a focus on performance, security, and best practices. It distinguishes it from siblings like 'context_analyzer' and 'debug_helper' by specifying the resource (code) and the analysis domains. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'analyzes' and could be more specific about accepting a code snippet.

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 alternatives such as 'optidev_context_analyzer' or 'optidev_debug_helper'. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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