analyze_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool combines multiple results and lists output categories (file info, imports, types with member counts, diagnostics). It also indicates configurable behavior via includeMembers and includeDiagnostics. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, rate limits, or exact output structure.

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 sections for USAGE and OUTPUT, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise but includes a bulleted list that, while informative, could be slightly more compact. Overall, it is efficient and easy to read.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description explains the output at a high level (file info, imports, types with member counts, diagnostics). However, it does not detail the exact fields within each category, which may leave some ambiguity about the data structure. It is adequate for a summary but not fully complete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (filePath, includeMembers, includeDiagnostics). The description adds a usage example and implies default values (includeDiagnostics default true, includeMembers default false). This provides moderate added value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Comprehensive file analysis in a single call' and lists exactly what it combines (file info, imports, types, diagnostics). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_document_symbols and get_diagnostics by offering a consolidated alternative.

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 says 'Use this instead of multiple calls to get_document_symbols + get_diagnostics,' providing clear guidance. It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or any other alternatives beyond the given pair.

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