analyze_cdk_project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it 'dynamically extracts service information from CDK constructs without relying on hardcoded service mappings,' explaining its methodology beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no redundant wording. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

With one well-documented parameter, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema, the description provides enough information for correct invocation. It covers the tool's purpose and operational approach without needing to explain return values thanks to the output schema.

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 only parameter, project_path, is fully documented in the schema as 'Path to the project directory.' The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Analyze' and clear resource 'CDK project', and states the actionable outcome 'identify AWS services used.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'analyze_terraform_project' by the project type.

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 clearly indicates use for CDK projects, which gives context for when to select it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'analyze_terraform_project' or state when not to use this tool.

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