analyze_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action (providing a summary) without disclosing side effects, read-only nature, performance implications, or error behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that could potentially be used in a larger analysis workflow.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists the symbol types. It is concise and contains no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description explains what it returns (a high-level summary of symbols). However, it lacks additional context such as expected output format, handling of large files, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to fully understand its place in the toolset.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the 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's function: providing a high-level summary of all symbols in a TS/JS file, listing specific symbol types (classes, interfaces, types, enums, functions). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_declarations or list_functions by focusing on a summary rather than raw declarations.

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 usage when a high-level overview of a file's symbols is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'use list_declarations for detailed declarations'). There is clear context but no explicit guidance.

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