analyze_code_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful limit ('mode=deep raises max_files cap to 100'), which implies a default cap of 10, but says nothing about runtime cost, whether the scan is read-only, what happens when target_path is invalid, or how results are aggregated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler and the core mechanism front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness tips into under-specification rather than optimal sizing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much open for a tool with a mode switch and a path argument: it omits target_path entirely and never characterizes what a 'quality scan' produces or costs.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains only the mode/max_files interaction; target_path is never mentioned, and the difference between 'quick' and 'deep' beyond the file cap is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific mechanism and resource: 'Pylint-based quality scan'. That is enough to tell it apart from analyze_code_complexity or search_for_errors by inference, but the description never explicitly scopes what 'quality' covers (lint errors, style, warnings) nor names the sibling it is not.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only selection hint is the inline note about mode='deep', which is about parameter choice rather than about when this tool is the right one versus analyze_code_complexity or search_for_errors.

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