analyze_terraform_project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that the tool 'dynamically extracts service information from Terraform resource declarations', which explains how the analysis works and what data sources are used. This goes beyond the annotation's safety declaration and informs the agent about the tool's operational mechanism.

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 sentences long, with no redundant phrasing. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation. The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and behavior without needing to detail return values, as the output schema likely covers that. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention potential limitations (e.g., only works with Terraform source files), but this is not a critical omission.

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 schema has one parameter with a description ('Path to the project directory') and 100% coverage. The tool description adds specificity by clarifying that the path points to a Terraform project, which is not explicit in the parameter's generic wording. This helps the agent infer the expected input format and purpose.

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 a Terraform project to identify AWS services used, using the specific verb 'analyze' with the resource 'Terraform project' and the outcome 'identify AWS services'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_cdk_project, which targets CDK projects.

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 implies usage when the user has a Terraform project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The existence of sibling analyze_cdk_project suggests a need for differentiation, but the description relies on the tool name and the word 'Terraform' to imply context.

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