categorize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auto-discover' but doesn't explain how the discovery works, what output to expect, whether it's read-only or mutating, performance characteristics, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that analyzes system structure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Auto-discover subsystem boundaries') and provides essential context ('from dependency structure') in a compact form.

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?

For a tool that analyzes system dependencies with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'subsystem boundaries' means in practice, what format the results take, or how the dependency structure is processed. Given the complexity implied by terms like 'subsystem' and 'dependency structure', more contextual information is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'source' documented as 'EN source code describing the system'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Auto-discover') and resource ('subsystem boundaries'), explaining it analyzes dependency structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_system' or 'extract', which might have overlapping analysis functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'analyze_system', 'detail', and 'extract' that might handle system analysis, the description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions for this categorization function.

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