analyze_pure_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the tool scans and identifies, implying a read-only analysis, but does not confirm whether it modifies files or what the output contains. The behavior is hinted but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes purpose and outcome, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite a simple single-parameter tool and an existing output schema (not detailed in description), the description lacks context on expected file type (e.g., Fortran? any language?) and output format. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to 'file_path' beyond the name. It does not specify file format, restrictions, or how the path is used. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description offers no additional guidance.

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 ('scans and identifies') and resource ('subprograms suitable for pure/elemental attributes'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which are about other tasks like linting, formatting, or refactoring, not specifically purity analysis.

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?

The description implies use for promoting parallelization and side-effect-free design, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_refactoring' or 'lint_code'. No exclusions or hints about prerequisites (e.g., file type) are given.

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