language_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the categories of information returned (language mix, test files, parser backends, size, build ecosystems). It says nothing about performance on large repos, whether it recurses, or how deep the scan goes, so it stays at a moderate level.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb and scope appear immediately. The trailing enumeration is slightly list-heavy but every item earns its place by telling the agent what the output contains.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the five inventory categories. Combined with one obvious required parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only alternative-tool routing is missing.

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 0% and the description never mentions repo_path, so it does not compensate. However, the single parameter is a self-explanatory repository path with a matching title, making the semantic gap minimal in practice. This lands just above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ("Inventory") and enumerates the exact resources it reports on (languages, test files, parser backends, source size, build ecosystems), so the agent knows precisely what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely related siblings like repo_overview, software_inventory, or dependency_graph, all of which also survey a repository.

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 stated condition for when to choose this tool over repo_overview or software_inventory, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase "in a polyglot repository," which hints at multi-language codebases but stops short of routing guidance.

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