flow.analyze_from_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only analysis operation ('infer...from source code') but does not state whether it modifies files, what inputs it requires beyond the optional parameters, what side effects it might have (e.g., heavy computation), or how results are returned. This is a minimal hint of behavior, not enough for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by conveying the operation and expected outputs efficiently. However, it is so brief that it omits essential contextual and parameter information, slightly reducing structural quality.

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's complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the source code is identified, what the parameters do, or any conditions for successful execution. An agent would be guessing about critical invocation details.

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 does not mention maxFiles or includeTests at all. The agent cannot determine the meaning, effect, or appropriate values of these parameters from the description. Since the schema only provides names and types, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 uses a specific verb ('infer') with a concrete resource ('mobile screens, routes, transitions, and visible text candidates') and a clear source ('source code'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like code.search_code or code.read_file, which do not infer UI structure, and from flow.generate_test_scenarios, which generates scenarios rather than analyzing code.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a mobile project context, nor does it contrast with similar analysis tools. An agent has to infer the intended use case solely from the tool name and one-line description.

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