analyze_naming_issues

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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Analyze naming issues' without stating whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the document, or what side effects (if any) it has. The description adds minimal detail beyond the tool name, leaving an agent unable to anticipate safety or mutation behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details about parameters and behavior. While the purpose is front-loaded, the overall content is insufficient for a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 tool has two optional parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'naming issues' include, what the analysis returns, whether it requires a selected or active document, or how the parameters affect the analysis. An agent has no reliable way to know what to pass or what to expect, making this definition inadequate.

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 zero description coverage for its two optional parameters ('rules_path' and 'document_id'), and the description provides no explanation of either. It only mentions 'selected or active document,' which loosely hints at document selection but does not clarify the parameters' roles. With no additional semantics, an agent cannot infer how to use the parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('naming issues'), and scopes it to the 'selected or active document.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_spec_issues by the object of analysis (naming vs. spec), though it does not explicitly reference any sibling or contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions. It neither mentions similar tools (e.g., analyze_spec_issues) nor clarifies context such as whether it requires an open document. The usage is only implied by the name and vague verb.

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