Analyze Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. Description adds return value details (classes, methods, etc.) which is helpful but does not disclose behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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?

Description is concise at 2 sentences plus a bullet list of return values. Essential information is front-loaded. Could potentially be more concise by removing the bullet list if not needed, but overall efficient.

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 tool has 1 parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description adequately states the analysis scope and return value. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., file not found) and implicit dependencies like Python installed. Lacking that, it's minimally complete.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). Description repeats the parameter description but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it analyzes a Python file with specific elements (classes, functions, etc.) and metrics. Differentiates from sibling by mentioning 'Python file' and specific analysis outputs, but could be more distinct from cc_analyze_methods.

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?

Description implies use for investigating Python code structure and metrics. No mention of when to use alternatives like cc_analyze_methods or cc_diagnose_imports, but the scope is clear.

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