analyze_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds useful context about auto-detection and runtime, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., creating an analysis record) or whether authentication is required. It gives a decent baseline but leaves 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?

Four concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, scope, auto-detection, and duration. No filler or repetition, well front-loaded.

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?

Covers the trigger and behavior well, but does not explain what the tool returns or how to retrieve analysis results via sibling tools. Given no output schema, this omission leaves a notable gap in the overall workflow.

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 already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying auto-detection behavior for github_url, but says nothing about reanalyze beyond its schema definition. Marginal added value.

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 a specific action ('Submit a GitHub repository for Revibe analysis') and enumerates the analysis scope (architecture, file roles, execution flows, system design Q&A). This distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like get_summary and get_section.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool (submit a repo, auto-detect from git remote if no URL) and sets a time expectation (3-7 minutes). It does not explicitly name alternatives like check_status, but the workflow is implied.

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