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 but completely fails to deliver. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the analysis output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown behavior.

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?

While technically concise with just the tool name repeated, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single word doesn't earn its place by providing any useful information. True conciseness would balance brevity with sufficient information 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?

Given the complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is woefully inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect as output. This fails to meet even basic completeness requirements for a functional 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the single 'code' parameter. The tool description adds absolutely no information about what the 'code' parameter should contain, its expected format, constraints, or examples. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented and unusable.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (ac, developer_tip, gc, get_completion, tip). There's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or alternatives. This leaves the agent with no information to make informed tool selection decisions.

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