analyze_twig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It explicitly states that analysis is filesystem-only and lists what it extracts (inheritance, includes, imports, blocks, variables). It could mention side-effect-free behavior more explicitly, but is largely transparent.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then key extracted elements in a bullet list, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and return type (structured Markdown report). It is complete.

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 provides no description for the single parameter (0% coverage), but the description adds detailed guidance: valid formats (full path, partial name) and recursive search behavior. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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: analyze Twig templates and return structural metadata. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on code searching, routing, or project overview.

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 explains that no PHP execution is required, implying it is safe and fast for static analysis. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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