analyze_codebase_apis

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

No annotations are available, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this tool writes to storage (spec_id suggests it), what side effects occur, permission requirements, or limitations. The ambiguous nature of 'analyze' plus spec_id implies a write operation, but this is never clarified.

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 concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is arguably too brief, omitting important behavioral details, though this is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a terse description. It doesn't explain what the analysis returns, how results are stored, or any caveats about the frameworks. For a tool that likely scans code and persists findings, this is inadequate guidance for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: all three parameters (spec_id, source_path, framework) have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how framework auto-detection works or the relationship between source_path and spec_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter information.

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 codebase for API endpoints') and lists target frameworks (FeathersJS, Express, Fastify). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api_endpoints, which retrieve stored endpoints rather than analyzing source code. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that results are stored via spec_id, leaving slight ambiguity about the output.

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 does it mention exclusions or context. Despite the presence of sibling tools for API specs and routing patterns, no comparison or selection criteria is given. The user must infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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