analyze-mode-transitions

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's analysis behavior in detail: builds a complete transition graph, detects circular transitions, checks balanced push/pop, identifies modes without exit points, and suggests improvements. It also clearly describes the return structure, making the tool's behavior transparent. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it is read-only (non-destructive), though this is implied by its analytical nature.

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-organized with clear sections: purpose, when-to-use, features, returns, and example. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the bulleted features improve scannability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description fully covers the tool's context: it explains what it does, when to use it, its key features, the structure of its return values (transitions, issues, suggestions), and provides a usage example. With no output schema present, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return fields. No important aspects appear missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage, with both parameters (from_file and grammar_content) having descriptions. The tool description adds an example usage with from_file, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('mode transition graph'), and further specifies it detects issues in ANTLR4 lexer modes. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze-grammar or list-mode-rules, and the 'When to use' section reinforces the specific function.

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 'When to use' section explicitly lists concrete use cases: debugging mode switching logic, ensuring balanced push/pop, detecting circular transitions. This provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, which would elevate it to a 5.

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