analyze_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions systematic codebase checking and risk evaluation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or state changes. The agent learns the tool's function but not its operational impact.

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 sentence that combines purpose and a usage note. It is adequately concise but not front-loaded; the pseudocode instruction could be separate. No wasted words, but structure could be improved.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It mentions analysis and codebase checking but does not specify output format. The parameter details are covered by schema. Completeness is adequate but missing return value behavior.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, except repeating the pseudocode hint. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 tool's action: analyzing task requirements, checking codebase, evaluating feasibility and risks. It uses specific verbs like '分析' and '檢查', and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on analysis and risk assessment, though it could be more explicit.

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 a guideline to use pseudocode format for code output, but it does not specify when to use this tool instead of siblings like plan_task or reflect_task. There is no explicit context or exclusions.

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