review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it returns a score and report but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files), authentication needs, rate limits, or network access requirements for URLs.

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 concise with four short sentences, front-loading the purpose. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return value or scope).

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description misses key details: what happens when multiple input types are provided (url, file, project), how the report is structured, and any limitations on project size or URL fetching.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds context about working on files, URLs, or projects, which aligns with parameters. However, it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes code for issues using pattern matching, listing specific categories (security, performance, etc.). It identifies the action (analyze) and resource (code). However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'analyze' tool, which may have overlapping purpose.

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 mentions it works on files, URLs, or projects but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'analyze'), nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it.

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