analyze_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'scan_depth: Depth of detailed analysis (higher is slower)' which provides some behavioral context about performance impact. However, it doesn't disclose other important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, error conditions, or what format the analysis returns.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The structure with Args/Returns sections is helpful. While efficient, the purpose statement could be more specific to better earn its place.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Project analysis' returns, what aspects of structure are analyzed, or provide examples of typical use cases. The agent would struggle to understand what this tool actually produces.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful semantic context for all 3 parameters. It explains that 'project' is the project name, 'scan_depth' controls analysis detail with performance tradeoffs, and 'ctx' is for optional progress reporting. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema which only shows types and requirements.

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 'Analyze overall project structure' which provides a general purpose, but it's vague about what specific aspects are analyzed. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'analyze_complexity' or 'get_dependencies' which might also analyze project aspects. The description lacks specificity about what 'overall project structure' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'analyze_complexity', 'get_dependencies', and 'get_ast' that might provide overlapping or complementary analysis, the description offers no context about when this specific analysis tool is appropriate versus other analysis tools.

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