Analyze Project

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: exact return format ("No errors or warnings found." or one line per issue with type, message, location), the failure contract (any error fails the call, warnings alone do not), the up-to-one-minute wait, and the IDE/project prerequisite. These are things annotations cannot express and an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then return format, then failure semantics, then preconditions – a sensible ordering. It is dense with facts rather than padding, though the parenthetical and semicolon clauses make it read like a checklist rather than tight prose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return value and error behavior. Combined with the timeout and environment prerequisite, an agent has everything needed to call this and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum-like values, the default, and the select_project_item prerequisite are already documented in the schema description. The description only adds the performance rationale ("faster") for item scope, which is marginal added value, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Analyzes the current Xojo project for compile errors and warnings without building") plus the exact categories of findings (unused variables, type mismatches, deprecated API). The "without building" qualifier and the static-analysis framing clearly separate it from build_project and run_project in the sibling list.

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 explicit guidance on the scope choice: pass scope="item" for a faster analysis of the current selection, default "project" for everything, and it names the prerequisite tool (select_project_item). It also states the environmental precondition (Xojo IDE running with the project open). It stops short of naming when to prefer this over build_project or lint_project_file, so not a 5.

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