usage_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. It states that the tool 'generates' an analysis, but does not describe whether this is a read-only scan, what the output format is, or any side effects. The sourceCodePaths parameter hints at scanning behavior, but this is not explicitly stated in the description.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and subject. It is concise and free of irrelevant detail, but it is somewhat under-specified. However, conciseness is not penalized for missing detail here; the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what 'usage analysis' means, what the output will look like, and how it relates to sibling tools. The current description is too thin to provide an agent with sufficient context for effective invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, as the only parameter sourceCodePaths has a description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No parameter info is missing.

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 'Generate' and identifies the resource as 'usage analysis of translation keys', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like quality_analysis or coverage_report. However, it lacks detail on what 'usage analysis' entails, making it slightly vague but still actionable.

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 alternatives such as scan_code_for_missing_keys or coverage_report. There are no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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