Houtini-lm

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 is valuable behavioral information about state retention. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis vs. potentially modifying code, performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. For an 11-parameter analysis tool with no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 (WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) which helps organization. However, it includes some redundant information - the first sentence already covers the purpose, and the WORKFLOW section partially repeats this. The 'SAVES' section adds unique value but could be more integrated. Overall, it's reasonably concise but not perfectly front-loaded or streamlined.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but not complete context. It explains the purpose and gives usage guidance but doesn't describe what the analysis output looks like or important behavioral constraints. For a sophisticated dependency analysis tool with many configuration options, more information about expected outputs and analysis limitations would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'single-file analysis' which aligns with the 'code' parameter description, but this doesn't provide additional semantic value. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool analyzes code dependencies and lists specific aspects (circular references, unused imports, version conflicts, coupling issues). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_code_quality or analyze_single_file by focusing specifically on dependency relationships rather than general code quality or single-file analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from analyze_project_structure which might overlap in scope.

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 about when to use this tool: 'Perfect for understanding complex code, identifying issues, and technical debt assessment.' It also offers a workflow tip: 'Use Desktop Commander to read files, then pass content here for analysis.' This gives practical guidance on how to prepare inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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