analyze_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Scan' and 'Returns structured candidate records', implying a read operation but not explicitly confirming non-destructiveness, or any side effects, access requirements, or limitations. There is no mention of whether it modifies files or requires network access.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. It contains no redundant information and efficiently communicates the tool's core functionality.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 15 sibling tools, the description is too thin. It fails to explain how to effectively use the tool, omits any notes on expected input formats or use cases, and does not help the agent decide between this and scan_file. The absence of usage guidance and behavioral context makes it incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 scans source files for 0day vulnerabilities using specific pattern count, and mentions the output structure. It distinguishes from some siblings like generate_poc but does not explicitly differentiate from similar scan tools like scan_file, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for selecting this tool over siblings like scan_file or verify_finding. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema.

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