sc_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The term 'analysis' hints at a read-only operation but does not explicitly state side effects, output format, or whether any files are modified. It also fails to disclose how flags affect behavior.

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 extremely concise, but it is under-sized for a tool with four parameters and a nested evidence object. It reads like a title rather than a functional guide, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a one-sentence description. The evidence object, flag enums, and persona options are not explained, making it very difficult for an agent to construct a valid or meaningful invocation.

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 describes all four parameters with basic descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. However, the tool description adds no further meaning to parameters like args, flags, persona, or evidence, leaving their interplay unexplained.

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 states it performs 'multi-dimensional analysis of code quality', which conveys a general purpose but fails to specify what exactly it analyzes or what output it produces. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like sc_scan, leaving ambiguity about its unique role.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sc_scan or sc_improve. No context for prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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