analyze_summary

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it only considers static imports, returns aggregate counts with a specific structure, and handles errors with a retry pattern. It clearly communicates what the tool does and its limitations, exceeding the minimal requirements.

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 at three sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, with every sentence providing essential information. No waste or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (aggregate counts), provides an example, and specifies error handling. No additional context is needed for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (min_dependents) already described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 identifies the tool as a 'one-call overview of codebase dependency health,' explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_circular, find_hotspots, find_unused, and find_islands by stating it should be preferred over running them individually. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 states when to use this tool ('Prefer this over running individual analyses') and provides an alternative: 'so the agent can decide which specific analysis to drill into.' It also gives explicit error recovery instructions ('On Index not found/stale error, call index_project, then retry'), offering comprehensive guidance.

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