analyze

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 implies generative behavior ('gera diagnóstico e testes compiláveis') but does not specify side effects like file creation, authentication requirements, or whether the tool is read-only or mutable.

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 sentence that conveys key information (pipeline version, analysis, pattern detection, output generation) without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action, though mixing Portuguese and English may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions generating diagnosis and tests but does not specify the format or how the orchestrator agent presents them. The description is adequate for a simple analysis tool but lacks detail on response structure.

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 both parameters described ('Pergunta ou descrição do problema' and 'Código-fonte Java/Kotlin'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it analyzes code, detects GPA patterns, and generates diagnosis and compilable tests via OrchestratorAgent. It provides a specific verb and resource, but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'analyze_test_coverage' or 'diagnose_test_failure', which have narrower scopes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_test_coverage' or 'multi_agent_analyze'. The description does not provide context for selection or exclusions.

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