analyze_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the analysis is read-only, what side effects it might have (e.g., creating derived data), or what the output looks like. 'Analyzes' implies non-mutation but lacks explicit confirmation.

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 a single, clearly worded sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, leaving the description to cover return values, required environment, and side effects. It only says it analyzes a file, but does not explain how results are returned or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing an Xcode project). This is a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter (sdk, scheme, filePath) having a descriptive text, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already documents them adequately.

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 uses a specific verb 'analyzes' with a specific resource 'source file' and names the tool 'Xcode's static analyzer', making its function clear and distinct from sibling tools like build_project, run_tests, or read_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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like build_project or run_tests, nor does it mention exclusions. The only implied usage is for checking files, but no explicit context or alternative comparisons are provided.

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