code_parse

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it persists artifacts under a specific path, optionally traces variable references, and currently supports only COBOL. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects of overwriting artifacts.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, supported languages, output location, optional parameter.

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 no output schema, the description explains the transformation (AST, model, summary) and artifact persistence. It covers language support and optional tracing, though it does not mention if the tool returns anything or only persists files.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema; it restates 'path' and 'trace_variable' without elaboration on format or constraints.

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 it parses a source file into structured code knowledge (AST, normalized model, summary), specifies supported COBOL extensions, and distinguishes from sibling tools like raw_read (read raw) or code_query (query code).

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?

It implies usage for code analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like raw_read or code_query. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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