project_onboarding_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about whether the analysis is read-only, whether it writes cache/state, what the output looks like, cost, or permissions. 'Analyze' alone is not a behavior disclosure.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler, so it is concise. The brevity is not the problem — the problem is that the content is underspecified, which is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

A single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations means the description is the only source of truth, and it provides nothing about the analysis produced, its scope, or its return shape. An agent cannot call this correctly or interpret the result.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never mentions root_path — not its meaning, whether it defaults to the current working directory (the parameter is optional), or what path form is expected. The param name is somewhat self-descriptive but the description adds nothing.

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 phrase 'Analyze repository structural memory' pairs a verb with an abstract object, but 'structural memory' is not a concrete resource and nothing distinguishes this tool from the siblings, which are all symbol/code lookup tools. An agent cannot predict what this returns or how it differs from find_symbol_definition.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the listed siblings (find_symbol_definition, find_symbol_references, resolve_library_docs). Nothing guides selection.

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