analyze

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. While it lists what the tool analyzes, it does not mention that the tool is read-only and has no side effects, nor does it cover rate limits or performance impacts. The description is incomplete in this regard.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose. The first sentence is somewhat long but efficient, and the second sentence adds the optional parameter. No redundant information.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description covers the main analysis aspects adequately. It mentions the key components (complexity, dependencies, code smells, quality score) and the optional scope. However, it could improve by hinting at output format or interpretation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter `path`, and the description merely echoes the schema's meaning. No additional semantics or usage details are added beyond what the schema already 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 clearly states the tool is for code review and quality assessment, listing specific analyses (complexity, dependencies, code smells, quality score). It distinguishes from siblings by its focus on code analysis, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'health' or 'explain'.

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 'health' or 'explain'. The description only mentions optional scoping via `path`, but lacks context on prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid using it.

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