analyze_files_batch

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 mentions analyzing for 'code quality issues' but doesn't specify what types of issues, whether the analysis is read-only or modifies files, what permissions are required, or how results are returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that processes multiple files.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of analyzing multiple files for code quality, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or the scope of analysis, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('files' and 'rules') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'code quality issues' entail or how rules interact with files, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('analyze') and resource ('multiple files for code quality issues'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_code_quality', which appears to serve a similar purpose, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 like 'analyze_code_quality' or other sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether files need to be from a repository or can be arbitrary, and offers no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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