gaiia_analyze_project

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'deep architectural audit' without specifying if it modifies files, requires permissions, or produces output. The mode parameter hints at different behaviors but is not elaborated.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the action. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more descriptive without being verbose.

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?

Despite having two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the audit entails, how the mode differs, or what the output looks like, which is inadequate for a potentially complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'deep architectural audit' and does not enrich the understanding of directory_path or mode usage.

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 performs a deep architectural audit of a local project directory, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gaiia_transform, which could also involve project analysis, leading to a slight deduction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gaiia_transform, sync_specs). The description lacks context for preference or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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