analyze_modifiers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states the output type (definitions with source and function list) and pagination. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. For an analysis tool, the behavior is largely implied but not explicit.

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 concise with three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and use cases. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more structured with parameter hints.

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 (nested parameters, many siblings, output schema exists), the description covers purpose and output shape but omits optional filtering capabilities (contract_key, modifier_filter). It adequately handles pagination but is not fully complete for a tool with optional parameters.

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% at the top level, and the tool description only mentions pagination (hinting at limit/offset). The nested schema has detailed descriptions, but the tool description adds no extra meaning for the key parameters like path, contract_key, or modifier_filter.

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 'Analyzes' and the specific resource 'custom modifier definitions and their usage across functions', distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_events or analyze_low_level_calls.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: auditing access control, finding implementations, understanding guards. It also mentions pagination support. However, it does not explicitly exclude sibling tools or state when not to use.

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