analyze_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It mentions 'batch-create cognition nodes' which implies state mutation, but does not disclose destructive potential, permission levels, or side effects. Some behavioral context is added but incomplete.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action but is relatively long (19 words). It conveys the core purpose without wasted words, but could be split for clarity. Acceptable but not optimal.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover necessary details like return format, error behavior, or how 'cognition nodes' are created. Many sibling tools relate to cognition, but context is not provided for this specific 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 7 parameters. The agent must infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient. The description could have explained key parameters like 'deepScan', 'excludePatterns', or 'generateInitialRules'.

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 action (scan), resource (project directory), and multiple outcomes (extract file stats, detect coding conventions, batch-create cognition nodes). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_workspace' by specifying governance initialization, though does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies use for governance initialization but lacks when-not or prerequisite information. Without sibling comparisons, the agent cannot easily decide.

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