analyze_polyglot_project

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 states what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies anything, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a read-only analysis tool, the description should explicitly indicate non-destructive behavior.

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any redundant information.

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?

No output schema or annotations are provided. The description is adequate for a simple analysis tool but lacks details on return values, prerequisites, or potential side effects. Given the two boolean parameters, the description could be more complete by explaining the analysis scope or output format.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how the parameters affect the analysis. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate documentation.

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 analyzes project structure for multi-language patterns, architecture style, and language interoperability. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on polyglot/multi-language aspects, which is specific among many analysis tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_architecture or detect_cross_language_apis. The description does not provide any context for selection among siblings.

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