analyze_project

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 discloses that the tool analyzes, identifies, generates clarifying questions, and returns a structured output including scope, structure, questions, and risk assessment. It does not mention side effects, but the tool appears to be read-only and non-destructive, which is acceptable for analysis.

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 with two clear paragraphs and an important callout. It front-loads the tool's role as Phase 1 and first call. There is minimal fluff, though 'Senior Project Manager Analysis' could be considered slightly redundant. Still 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 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (scope, structure, questions, risk). It does not detail the exact format of the output, but it provides enough context for an agent to understand its purpose and usage. A slightly richer description of the output could push it to 5.

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 100%, so all parameters have individual descriptions in the schema. The overall description adds context about the tool's purpose and output but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool analyzes a project description to produce a structured scope document, identifying project type, industry, tone, etc. It explicitly positions itself as the first tool to call, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_background or plan_architecture.

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 explicitly states 'THIS SHOULD BE THE FIRST TOOL CALLED' and 'Always call this FIRST before any other tool. It sets up the entire project context.' This provides clear guidance on when to use it, and it implies it should be used before any other tool. No misuse scenario is stated, but given its role, it is adequate.

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