analyze_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that all TS/JS files are analyzed, but does not clarify recursion, read-only nature, handling of non-TS files, or any limitations. This is insufficient given the absence of annotations.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb and scope, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the package-level summary contains or any directory traversal behavior. It only vaguely states 'package-level summary' and omits recursion semantics, error behavior, and potential performance implications. For a directory-wide analysis tool, this is incomplete.

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%, with both path and include_tests documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Analyzes' and identifies the resource ('all TypeScript/JavaScript files in a directory') and the output ('package-level summary'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analyze_file, which targets a single file.

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 whole-package analysis but does not explicitly state when to choose this over analyze_file or other siblings. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, relying on the reader to infer scope.

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