analyze_code_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only analysis but does not state whether it modifies anything, what output it returns, what happens on failure, or what 'best practices' concretely means.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, though 'best practices' is vague and could be more concrete without adding length.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description and schema are enough to make the call, but there is no output schema and no behavioral detail, so an agent cannot know what result to expect. The overlap with sibling analysis tools also makes the definition less complete than it should be.

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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter, projectPath, with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a clear verb ('analyzes') and a clear resource ('module code'), so an agent can see this is a code-analysis operation. However, 'best practices' is broad and does not distinguish this from siblings like check_security_vulnerabilities or evaluate_performance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the specific code-quality dimensions it covers, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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