analyze_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the content of the result (frameworks, package manager, language distribution), implying a read-only static analysis, but says nothing about scope (repo-wide scan?), cost, failure modes on non-project directories, or whether results are cached. Adequate but with clear gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the detected artifacts, with no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does enough by enumerating what the analysis returns. The remaining hole is sibling disambiguation against get_project_context, which matters given how similar the two names are.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation needs no arguments.

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?

States a specific verb ('Map') and enumerates the concrete outputs: structure, frameworks, package manager, language distribution. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_context, which sounds like it could return overlapping information.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus get_project_context, find_symbol, or get_project_diagnostics. The only guidance is implicit in the verb 'Map' and the fact that it takes no parameters, which an agent must infer.

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