analyze_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool combines but does not explicitly state it is read-only, whether it has side effects, or error behavior. Given the analysis context, it is likely read-only, but the description could be more explicit.

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 with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, a bullet list of components, and a usage note. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 complexity of a comprehensive analysis tool and the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more detail about the return structure. It lists what is included but not the format or how to interpret the result. This is a gap for an agent that needs to parse the response.

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 provides full description for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall purpose but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what is in the schema. It implies the roles of includeMembers and includeDiagnostics through the bullet list, but no new specifics.

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 performs comprehensive file analysis, lists the combined components (file info, imports, types, diagnostics), and explicitly positions it as an alternative to multiple calls to get_document_symbols and get_diagnostics. This distinguishes it effectively from siblings.

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 to use this tool instead of multiple calls to get_document_symbols + get_diagnostics, and states the prerequisite that load_project must be called first. It does not explicitly exclude cases where only a subset is needed, but the context implies the tool is for comprehensive analysis.

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