analyze_scad_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool 'parses parameters, modules, and library imports' to understand architecture, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or mention any limitations or side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The inclusion of an 'Args' section with parameter description is useful, though slightly redundant with the schema. Every sentence contributes valuable information with minimal fluff.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should specify the return format or structure to inform the agent's next steps. It mentions understanding architecture but does not describe the output (e.g., list of modules, parameters, imports). This leaves the agent without sufficient guidance on how to use 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds crucial meaning by stating 'OpenSCAD source code' for the 'scad_code' parameter. This clarifies what the string should contain beyond the bare type, though further detail like encoding or size limits is absent.

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 'Analyze the structure of OpenSCAD code' with a specific verb and resource. It details what is parsed (parameters, modules, library imports) to understand architecture, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'compile_scad' or 'modify_scad_module'.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Use this before modifying code to know what modules exist and what each one does,' providing clear when-to-use context. It implicitly positions itself as a prerequisite for modification tools, though it does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives.

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