analyze_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('analyze') without explaining what the tool does operationally—such as whether it performs static analysis, runtime checks, or generates outputs. Critical details like permissions, side effects, or output format are missing, making it inadequate for a tool with parameters.

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 phrase, which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks the structure needed for clarity—such as front-loading key details or breaking down components. It's brief but not effectively 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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose in context, parameter roles, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes. This leaves the agent unable to understand or invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters ('project_path', 'analysis_type', 'generate_report'). It doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected values, or how they influence the analysis. With zero compensation for the schema gap, this fails to add any semantic value.

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 'Проанализировать проект Webasyst' (Analyze Webasyst project) states a general action but lacks specificity. It mentions the resource ('Webasyst project') but doesn't clarify what analysis entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'check_project_compliance' or 'validate_ui_usage'. This is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful differentiation.

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 many sibling tools available (e.g., 'check_project_compliance', 'get_app_info'), the description fails to indicate appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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