analyze_workspace

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

No annotations provided; the description only states the primary action without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authorization requirements, or return format.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is too brief for a tool with 4 parameters and no schema descriptions. Every sentence should earn its place, but here it is under-specified.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error behavior, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 tool description does not elaborate on any parameter meaning. For a 4-parameter tool with a required baseCommit, the description adds no value beyond parameter names.

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 verb 'analyze', the resource 'git workspace diff', and the purpose 'for rule violations'. It distinguishes from siblings like capture_diff (captures diff) and query_rules (queries rules) by specifying the analysis goal.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like capture_diff, query_rules, or analyze_project. The description lacks explicit context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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