detail

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 hints at analysis outputs (e.g., concurrency, resilience) but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it performs computation, returns data, modifies state, or has side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 very concise—a single phrase listing analysis aspects—with no wasted words. However, it lacks front-loaded clarity (e.g., starting with a clear verb) and structure, making it somewhat cryptic rather than efficiently informative.

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?

Given the complexity implied by terms like 'deep structural analysis' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the analysis is performed, or the scope of results, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 parameter 'source' documented as 'EN source code describing the system'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. With high schema coverage, 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 lists technical analysis aspects (concurrency, flow landmarks, resilience, dominator tree, min-cuts) which gives a general sense of purpose, but it's vague about what specific action is performed. It doesn't clearly state a verb+resource combination like 'analyze source code for structural properties' or distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_system' or 'trace'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference any sibling tools like 'analyze_system' or 'trace' that might serve similar purposes, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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