analyze_control_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clarifies the tool's purpose (analysis, not modification) and the prerequisite, implying it is a read-only operation. However, it could explicitly state that it does not modify state. The detailed output description adds transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage example, an output summary line, and a bulleted list of reported items. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the output (branch count, loop types, return points, throw points, try-catch blocks, nesting depth). It also covers the prerequisite. The sibling tools are numerous, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a usage example with concrete values (e.g., 'line=10, column=5'), which clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema. This provides marginal added value over the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Analyze the control flow structure of a method', includes a usage example, and lists detailed output items (branch count, loop types, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_data_flow and analyze_file.

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 notes a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and provides a usage example. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives such as analyze_data_flow or get_complexity_metrics, nor does it state 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.