analyze_stamp_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions analysis activities (parsing, resolution, detection), it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns, whether it's computationally intensive, if there are rate limits, or what 'security analysis' and 'performance analysis' entail. For a complex 6-parameter tool with no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that packs substantial information about the tool's scope. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key analysis components. While dense, every element serves a purpose in conveying what the tool does. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a complex analysis tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the analysis results take, what 'recursive stamp' means in this context, or how the different analysis components (security, performance) relate to each other. The agent would struggle to understand what to expect from using this tool.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'dependency resolution' which relates to 'include_dependencies' and 'max_depth', but doesn't provide additional context about how these parameters interact or affect the analysis.

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 analyzes code structure and dependencies of a recursive stamp, specifying JavaScript parsing, dependency resolution, and pattern detection. It distinguishes itself from simpler sibling tools like 'get_stamp' or 'get_stamp_dependencies' by offering comprehensive analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'analyze_stamp_patterns' which might overlap in pattern detection functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_stamp_dependencies' and 'analyze_stamp_patterns' available, there's no indication of when this comprehensive analysis tool is preferable over more focused tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context is mentioned.

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