analyze_code_quality

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 mentions the tool 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions' which adds useful behavioral context about state persistence. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, computational requirements, potential side effects, or error handling for the analysis operation.

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 appropriately sized with three distinct sections (main description, WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each section adds value, though the 'SAVES' section could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as an afterthought. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the purpose and usage context well but doesn't address important contextual aspects like what the analysis output looks like, limitations of the analysis, error conditions, or how to interpret results. For a tool with this many parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions general analysis aspects but doesn't explain how parameters like analysisDepth, analysisType, or the file selection parameters (code, filePath, files, projectPath) relate to each other or should be used together.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes code quality with specific aspects (complexity, maintainability, best practices adherence), which provides a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_single_file or analyze_project_structure, which appear to have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 clear context with the 'WORKFLOW' section stating it's perfect for understanding complex code, identifying issues, and technical debt assessment. The 'TIP' section offers practical guidance to use Desktop Commander first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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