analyze_control_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or have side effects, nor does it discuss performance or permissions. The word 'Analyze' implies inspection, but not explicitly.

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-structured with a usage line, output summary, and bulleted list of reports. It is concise and front-loaded, though the usage line could be considered redundant.

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 details the output fields (branch count, loop types, etc.) but lacks a formal output schema or return format. It covers input usage and basic output, but misses behavioral transparency and error handling.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds a usage example and notes zero-based indexing, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 it analyzes the control flow structure of a method, specifying what it reports (branching, loops, returns, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_data_flow (data flow analysis) and analyze_method (broader analysis).

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?

Provides a usage example and states the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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