Analyze code with MiMo Free

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

Anontations are absent, and description carries the full burden. It discloses the important read-only nature of the operation and the low reasoning effort, a useful performance trait. It does not go into return maps or rate limits, but it does offer meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare schema.

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 word I count is minimal, each sentence earns its place: the first defines the capability, the second defines the usage condition. The description is appropriately small, well-ordered, and holds no fluff.

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 only two well-sdhema'd parameters and no output schema, the description does not need to explain internals. However, some behavioral aspects such as return semantics or output format are not touched, which are minor for a read-analy analysis 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?

He schema already has 100% coverage for both required parameters: 'prompt' has a focused question description and 'directory' a path description. The description adds no new semantic detail, so a baseline 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 communicates a specific verb (analyze), a focused resource (code), and a specific model (fixed OpenCode MiMo V2.5 Free) with clarity and concision. By mentioning 'read-only' and naming Cloudflare GLM, it distinguishes itself from its primary sibling and provides a 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?

It tells the agent exactly when to use it — after Cloudflare GLM fails or is insufficient — thereby providing a critical routing context. It does not explicitly mention the Nemotron sibling or exclude that alternative, which is a minor omission; hence the 4 rather than 5.

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