full_extraction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes what it does (run analyses and produce a report) without disclosing behavioral traits such as execution time, resource usage, side effects, or error cases. This lacks sufficient transparency for an AI agent to gauge implications.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the main purpose first, then listing sub-analyses in a bullet-like format. It could be more structured, but every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It lists the analyses combined, which is useful. However, it lacks any prerequisites, limitations, or typical usage patterns that would make it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description explicitly defines the 'path' parameter as 'Absolute path to the repository root directory,' adding clear meaning beyond the schema's simple string type. Since schema description coverage is 0% but there is only one parameter, the description adequately compensates.

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 clearly states it runs ALL analyses and returns a comprehensive report, listing the individual analyses (scan, dependencies, architecture, patterns, API surface) it combines. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by indicating it is a composite of them for complete repo understanding.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for complete repo understanding,' implying when to choose this over individual sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide precise alternatives, though the list of sibling tools is implicitly the alternative.

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