rails_analyze_feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — case-insensitive partial matching across all layers — but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or ordering, which matters for a tool that aggregates nine-plus layers.

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 scope enumeration is front-loaded and the usage guidance follows immediately; every sentence does work. The long comma-separated layer list is dense but earns its place by defining breadth rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by effectively listing the sections returned. What is missing is any sense of response size or shape (single report vs. per-layer buckets), which an agent would want before calling on a large feature.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with the same examples ('authentication', 'User', 'payments', 'orders') plus the case-insensitive partial-match note. The description's parameter guidance largely restates the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Full-stack feature analysis") and enumerates exactly which layers are covered — models, controllers, routes, services, jobs, views, Stimulus, tests, callbacks, concerns, env dependencies. That breadth implicitly separates it from narrow siblings like rails_get_model_details or rails_get_callbacks, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives three concrete triggering scenarios — exploring an unfamiliar feature, onboarding to a codebase area, tracing across layers — which is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of exclusions or naming the narrower sibling tools to use instead once the agent knows what it is looking for.

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