coeus_analyze_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, but it only says the tool 'asks' and is 'large-context.' It does not disclose effects, prerequisites, cost, return behavior, or whether any state changes, and no safety profile is provided.

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 entire necessary message fits in one front-loaded sentence that places the action and key differentiator ('large-context', 'ignore guidance') first. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent still lacks enough information to know exactly what model/scope values mean, what the response will be, and when it should be invoked among many similar codebase-analysis siblings.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3 even though those descriptions are just names. The description adds some semantic color by mapping target to 'directory or @file set' and ignore to 'guidance,' but it does not clarify model or scope.

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 tool asks a large-context question about a directory or @file set, with ignore guidance, so the core action and target are identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as coeus_analyze, coeus_ask, or coeus_codebase_map.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The 'directory or @file set' phrase implies a codebase-analysis context, but only weakly.

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