Map what a change touches

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

Annotations already declare read-only, local, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: results are deterministic and computed from code rather than by a model, output is JSON, and the tool requires SKYLOS_API_KEY or returns an authentication error. It also notes the CLI alternative needs no key, which is valuable operational detail.

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 front-loaded and dense, putting the output inventory first and the auth constraint later. The first sentence is very long, and the separate flags sentence is somewhat redundant, but overall the structure is efficient given the amount of useful information.

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?

This is a complex analysis tool with an output schema and rich annotations, and the description covers the key invocation details: what it returns, deterministic behavior, read-only/local operation, and authentication requirements. Given the output schema, return values do not need further explanation.

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%, and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it maps what a code change touches, with concrete outputs such as changed functions, calls, callers, security checks, and signature changes. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like validate_code_change or verify_change, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to review a code change, and flags list what a person must look at. It also states important prerequisites and the fallback that only analyze works without an API key. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it directly to verify_change/validate_code_change.

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