analyze_single_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions' which adds behavioral context about persistence, but doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, computational cost, rate limits, or authentication requirements for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 uses a structured format with sections (DESCRIPTION, WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) which is helpful, but contains some redundancy and could be more front-loaded. The opening sentence is comprehensive but could be more concise, and the sections could be better integrated.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context about purpose and workflow but lacks details about return values, error conditions, or limitations. The mention of saving Claude context is helpful but insufficient for full completeness.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, though it implies the tool handles both single-file and multi-file analysis through its opening statement.

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 for structure, quality, patterns and provides recommendations, specifying it works for individual files or entire projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_code_quality' or 'analyze_project_structure', which appear to offer overlapping functionality.

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 usage context with 'WORKFLOW' and 'TIP' sections, indicating it's for understanding complex code, identifying issues, and technical debt assessment, and suggesting to use Desktop Commander first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or when to choose specific sibling alternatives.

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