analyze_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that repository code is never executed and that findings are heuristic and explicitly not guaranteed to be correct or complete. It omits permission requirements, performance/scope limits beyond 'bounded', and pagination behavior implied by limit/offset.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then caveat. No filler and every sentence supplies information the schema or annotations do not.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with undocumented parameters, the description covers purpose and reliability caveats but says nothing about how findings are returned, what 'supported source files' means, or how limit/offset shape results. Adequate but with real gaps.

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 0% and none of the three parameters (path, limit, offset) are explained in the description. 'Supported source files' loosely implies path scope and 'bounded' loosely implies limit, but the description adds almost no usable semantics over the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: runs bounded local heuristics over supported source files and returns possible defects and security risks. Clear and concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like scan_project or review_security, so an agent must infer which analyzer to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite four sibling review/scan tools that plausibly overlap. The phrase 'supported source files' hints at a supported-file restriction but never says what is unsupported or when another tool is preferable.

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