analyze_project_structure

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive actions, authentication needs, or side effects. The agent is left with no information about the tool's impact.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it lacks substance. Conciseness without informativeness is a drawback. Every word should earn its place; here, only the alias reference provides any value.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what analysis is performed and what the tool returns. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's complete behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a 'path' parameter described as 'Project directory to analyze.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate as schema fully documents the parameter.

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 labels it as an alias for 'spring_project_summary' without specifying what that tool does. It only adds 'optimized for agent planning', which is vague. The purpose is unclear, as an agent would not know what analysis is performed.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The phrase 'optimized for agent planning' implies a context but does not differentiate from the primary 'spring_project_summary' or other tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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