getJsonSection_code_analysis

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states it 'Get[s]' data, implying a read operation, but fails to disclose return format (e.g., JSON structure, potential size), side effects, or idempotency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 12 words) and front-loaded with the key information. Every word is necessary, achieving high efficiency without filler.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at the response content. 'code_analysis' is somewhat self-explanatory but vague. With many sibling sections, more context (e.g., what code_analysis contains versus binary_analysis) would improve completeness. Adequate but not thorough.

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% with 'hash' described as 'Hash of the scan'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline for high coverage but not enriching the parameter's semantics.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('code_analysis section of the MobSF JSON report') with the required input ('by hash'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools that retrieve other sections.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getJsonReport or other getJsonSection_* tools. There is no context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for retrieving code_analysis results.

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