analyze_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool is read-only and a wrapper around delegate_tasks, which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like error handling or output format, but the read-only hint is valuable.

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 two sentences long, no wasted words. It front-loads the deprecation status and the key purpose, then provides the recommended alternative.

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?

Given that this is a deprecated compatibility wrapper, the description is complete: it tells the agent the tool's role, its read-only nature, and directs to the superior alternative. The 9 parameters and lack of output schema are compensated by the schema's own descriptions and the deprecation context.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only hinting that 'task' is a read-only analysis task. It does not significantly augment the schema's descriptions.

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 is a deprecated compatibility wrapper for one read-only analysis job, distinguishing it from the sibling delegate_tasks. The verb 'analyze_code' and noun 'code' are specific, and the description directly addresses what the tool does.

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 explicitly advises to prefer 'delegate_tasks + job_result' as an alternative, and indicates deprecation. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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