code_quality_analyze_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: file count limit, backend selection logic, cross-backend deduplication, and configurable filtering. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., running IDE, Sonar installation) and performance implications, which would be helpful for a tool integrating external services.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first sentence presents the core action and constraints; the second adds configurable options. Every phrase contributes value without redundancy.

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 sophisticated tool with multiple backends and deduplication, the description covers the main workflow and configurable modes. It reasonably explains the output ('unified findings'). While an output schema exists (so return value detail is handled structurally), the description could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites or typical use cases.

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 0%. The description clarifies two parameters (errors_only, deduplication_mode) and explains backend_mode's default and auto behavior. However, project_root and file_absolute_paths are not mentioned beyond the initial statement, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 action ('Analyze'), resource ('absolute file paths'), constraints ('1 to 200'), default backend behavior, and output characteristics. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like code_quality_analyze_git_changes and code_quality_analyze_project.

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?

While the description explains the default backend strategy, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like jetbrains_inspect_files or code_quality_analyze_git_changes. Usage context is implied but not articulated with exclusions.

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