Analyze Enforce Script

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds little beyond that. It does not explain what the output looks like, any side effects, or limitations. The tool is said to run checks, but without an output schema, the agent cannot anticipate the return value. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence in English and its German translation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place by stating what the tool does.

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 the tool (4 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify code vs file vs addon, what the output contains, or how to interpret the results. The agent would lack essential context to use the tool 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It mentions 'code, one file, or all scripts' but does not map these to the parameters (code, path, project, creatorTag). The agent cannot understand how to use each parameter effectively, making the description insufficient for parameter selection.

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 that the tool runs heuristic Enfusion convention and performance checks on code, files, or all scripts in an addon. The verb 'Run' and the specific resource ('checks') are well-defined, and it is easily distinguishable from siblings like 'validate_resources' or 'inspect_project' which have different purposes. However, it could be more specific about the exact nature of the checks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'validate_resources' or 'inspect_logs'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and title alone.

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