analyze_project_for_gtrconfig

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

Discloses access restriction and return format. However, does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. With no annotations, more behavioral detail would be helpful. Also, description claims caller_agent_id is required while schema says optional, causing inconsistency.

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?

Description is relatively concise with main purpose and param list, but mixes Japanese and English. The param descriptions are brief. Could be more structured.

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 purpose, access, params, returns. Missing prerequisites or behavior details. With an output schema present, return description is acceptable but could be more specific.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully explain parameters. It provides brief descriptions for both params, but incorrectly states caller_agent_id as required, contradicting the schema. This could confuse the agent.

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?

Description clearly states it analyzes project structure and suggests recommended settings. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_gtrconfig' or 'check_gtrconfig', so the purpose is clear but not uniquely positioned.

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?

Only states access restriction (Owner/Admin), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit context for when to invoke or not.

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