analizar_proyecto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly communicates a read-only inspection action ('Inspecciona') and enumerates what will be examined (stack, layers, files, diagram files). It does not mention side effects or return format in detail, but for an analysis tool the disclosed scope is strong and contains no contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, detection details, and parameter explanation. The information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. The agent knows the input format, what the tool will analyze, and what it will detect, so it can invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates for the single parameter: it explains project_path as the absolute path to a project or repository and provides a concrete example ('D:/2026/MiProyecto'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspecciona la estructura de un proyecto en el disco local o repositorio'. It then names concrete detection targets (stack, architectural layers, representative files, existing .mmd/.puml diagrams), which makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or convert diagrams.

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 inspection workflow is implied by the phrase 'busca si ya existen diagramas', suggesting the tool is a precursor to diagram creation. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over the sibling diagram tools or when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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