cypress_analyze_spec

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 side effects and safety. The description does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it executes the spec, or any other behavioral constraints. It only lists output items, leaving safety and side effects implicit.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence efficiently lists the extracted artifacts without fluff. Every word contributes, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates what is returned by listing the extracted items. However, it omits whether the analysis is static or involves executing the spec, which could be relevant given sibling tools that run tests. Overall, it's fairly complete for its simplicity.

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 provides a clear description of the 'spec' parameter, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond restating the scope as 'single spec file'. Given high schema coverage, a 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?

Description clearly defines the tool's function: deep analysis of a single spec file, and enumerates specific extraction targets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cypress_list_specs (which lists specs) and cypress_run_spec (which executes tests). The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to understand the structure of a spec file (describe/it blocks, URLs, routes, etc.) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. This is acceptable but not explicitly guided.

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