MMI Architecture Analyzer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the monitoring behavior ('Watches .cs files and automatically analyzes on changes') and persistence ('Stores score history over time'), which is useful. However, it misses critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it runs in background/blocking mode, potential resource impacts, error handling, or how to access stored history. For a tool that initiates continuous processes, this is a significant gap.

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 efficiently structured in three concise sentences that cover purpose, behavior, and outcome. Each sentence adds value: starting monitoring, watching/analyzing files, and storing history. It's front-loaded with the core action. Minor improvement could be made by combining ideas, but it's highly efficient with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics for a monitoring initiation tool. It covers what the tool does and key behaviors, but lacks details on operational aspects (e.g., how monitoring runs, accessing results, stopping). With 1 parameter at 100% schema coverage, it's minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding the full tool behavior.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'projectPath' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid paths or format requirements). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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's purpose: 'Starts continuous MMI monitoring for a C# project' with specific actions ('Watches .cs files and automatically analyzes on changes') and outcome ('Stores score history over time'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_mmi' (one-time analysis) and 'get_monitoring_status' (status check), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb 'starts' is specific, and the resource 'C# project' is well-defined.

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 context: it's for initiating ongoing monitoring rather than one-time analysis (contrasting with 'analyze_mmi'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_monitoring' or prerequisites (e.g., project must be valid). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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