analyze_execution_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis operation ('Analyze') and describes the output, but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, performance implications, or limitations such as language support or repository requirements. It adds some context with 'decision points and complexity assessment' but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections: an opening summary, a bulleted list of use cases, an Args list, and a Returns statement. It is slightly longer than necessary, with 'Perfect for...' being somewhat redundant, but the organization makes it easy to scan and the extra detail is useful.

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 there is no output schema, the description does explain the return value: 'Execution path analysis with decision points and complexity assessment'. It covers usage context, parameters, and returns. However, it lacks details on edge cases, input validation, or how the analysis is performed, which would make it more complete for a complex static analysis tool.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description compensates with an Args section that adds meaning: 'max_depth: How deep to analyze nested function calls', 'include_call_contexts: Whether to show how the function is called', and 'highlight_complex_paths: Whether to identify complex/risky paths'. Repo_path and working_directory are minimally described but acceptable. Overall, the description adds value beyond the raw schema.

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's function: 'Analyze all possible execution paths through a function and what triggers each path.' This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace_data_flow or trace_dependency_impact, which focus on data flow and dependencies rather than control flow.

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 an explicit 'Use this tool when you need to understand' list covering branches, conditions, edge cases, and decision points. It gives clear context for when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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