analyze_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives zero information about side effects, whether this is read-only, what operations destroy/modify state, API costs, rate limits, or failure modes. 'Unified code analysis operations' reveals nothing about the tool's behavioral footprint. For a multi-mode tool conducting potentially expensive AI analysis, this is a critical gap.

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 short (four words), which is efficient but severely under-specified. A four-word description is not conciseness; it's abdication of the documentation role. There's no front-loaded summary, no structure, and no attempt to communicate the tool's multi-modal nature despite having four distinct analysisType options.

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?

This is a complex tool with 5 parameters, 4 analysis subtypes, no annotations, and no output schema—yet the description provides essentially nothing. For a tool performing multiple distinct analysis operations (guidance, validation, AI analysis, similar code search), the description should enumerate what each mode does and what results to expect. This is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, the schema descriptions are fairly clear (e.g., 'Path to the file to analyze', 'Type of analysis to perform'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage, though the description itself contributes zero value here.

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 'Unified code analysis operations' is generic and tautological—it restates the tool's name without specifying what code analysis operations it can perform. While the enum in the schema reveals four distinct analysis types (guidance, validation, ai_analysis, similar_code), the description itself provides zero differentiation between these operations or from sibling tools like get_guidance or semantic_search.

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 such as get_guidance, semantic_search, or manage_execution. The description doesn't explain which analysisType to choose for which scenario, nor does it distinguish when analyze_code is appropriate versus the sibling tools that overlap with its capabilities.

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