Analyze project

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Read-only and conservative — every flagged item carries a human-readable reason.' This goes beyond the structured hints by explaining the conservative nature (likely under-reporting) and the presence of human-readable justifications, which helps an agent calibrate expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: two sentences containing all essential information without redundancy. It front-loads the primary action ('Diagnose a network for cleanup') and lists outputs efficiently. Every clause earns its place, 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?

The description thoroughly enumerates what the tool reports (dead operators, broken dependencies, orphan COMPs, dependency map) and provides context about safety ('read-only and conservative') and relationship to sibling tools. Since an output schema is present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and the existing coverage is sufficient for a complex analysis tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the load. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameters themselves, such as how path and recursive affect the analysis output. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnose') and resource ('a network for cleanup') and enumerates concrete report types: likely-dead operators, broken external-file dependencies, orphan COMPs, and a dependency map. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming plan_visual and snapshot_td_graph, so an agent can tell this tool's purpose apart from related ones.

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 explicitly says it 'Complements plan_visual (which plans a build) and snapshot_td_graph (which dumps structure),' providing direct comparison and alternatives. It also states 'Read-only and conservative,' giving an additional usage context that signals safety and caution. This gives an agent a clear sense of when to choose this tool over others.

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