analyze_liquid_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the operation is static analysis (non-executing) and requires specific authentication. It does not explicitly state that no files are modified, but 'statically analyze' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the auth requirement is a key behavioral constraint.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the auth prerequisite. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with only 3 parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and auth context. The absence of an output schema means a note about return format would be useful, but the phrase 'for performance anti-patterns' implies the output is a list of findings, so the description is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra semantics about parameter formatting or relationships beyond calling out 'specific file', which aligns with the fileName parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'statically analyze' with a precise resource 'specific Liquid file' and a clear objective 'for performance anti-patterns'. This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like find_slow_templates or get_bottlenecks, which likely operate at the theme or page level.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (analyzing a specific file) and adds a critical prerequisite (legacy cookie authentication via login_legacy). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the prerequisites and single-file scope give solid guidance.

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