Analyze local script

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

Annotations already indicate this is read-only and idempotent. The description adds the behavioral note that analysis uses closure debug info, constants, and nested prototypes, and that this only works 'when executor introspection is available'. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, target, and methodology. Every phrase contributes useful information, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the analysis returns or how the result is structured. It also omits details about behavior when executor introspection is unavailable, and provides no guidance on prerequisites beyond the script being indexed. With 6 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 low at 17%, only clientId has a description. The description mentions 'constants' and 'nested prototypes', which map to includeConstants and maxDepth, but does not explain each parameter or how they control the analysis. It adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but not enough to fully compensate for the missing per-parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('Analyze'), the target ('one indexed script'), the scope ('locally'), and the method ('using closure debug info, constants and nested prototypes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disassemble_script which disassembles, or search_scripts which searches across scripts.

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 implies usage for analyzing a specific indexed script's internals, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like explore_closure or disassemble_script. No exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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