generate_codebase_analysis_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'generates an assembled prompt' but does not explain the output format, side effects, or how the assembly works. This leaves significant ambiguity about what the tool actually returns or does.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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 tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but there is no output schema or description of what the generated prompt looks like. While the description is minimal, it is adequate for basic understanding, though it leaves room for more detail about the assembled prompt's content or return value.

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 descriptions for both parameters (technology_stack and analysis_focus), providing 100% coverage. The description merely echoes these parameter names without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Generate') and resource ('codebase analysis prompt'), with qualifiers 'assembled', 'specified technology stacks', and 'analysis focus areas' that distinguish it from sibling prompt generators like generate_prd_prompt or generate_bug_analysis_prompt.

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 implies usage context (when you need a codebase analysis prompt) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced, so the guidance is only implicit.

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