quality_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or what the return behavior looks like. It adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool with two optional parameters.

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 description lacks critical context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain what 'translation quality' means, what kind of analysis is performed, what the output format or return value is, or how to interpret results. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

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 parameters (languages, namespaces) already described in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 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 'Analyze translation quality across files' uses a clear verb ('analyze') and specific resource ('translation quality') with an explicit scope ('across files'). It is more than a tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like usage_analysis or coverage_report in general feel, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from these alternatives or specify what 'quality' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. There is no context for when quality_analysis would be preferred over usage_analysis, coverage_report, or validate_files.

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