code_quality_analyze_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses scanning scope (all files, tracked+untracked, .gitignore-respected), file type defaults, and constraints (200-file limit, dedup options). However, it does not disclose whether the tool mutates state, authorization needs, or detailed backend 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. It is efficient without wasted words, though it could be structured more (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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?

With 6 parameters and no annotations, the description needs to cover key behavior. It mentions limits and dedup, but omits explanations for backend_mode and errors_only. It lacks differentiation from jetbrains tools. Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but overall completeness is moderate.

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%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for project_root and extensions, but fails to explain errors_only, backend_mode, include_untracked (though consistent with scope), and deduplication_mode. Only 2 of 6 parameters get extra context, leaving significant gaps.

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 verb 'Scan all files' and the resource 'git repository under project_root'. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'Use this when you want the whole repo rather than just git changes', contrasting with code_quality_analyze_git_changes.

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 clear context on when to use: 'when you want the whole repo'. It mentions extending file types via extensions and references code_quality_analyze_files for limits and dedup options. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or full listing of alternatives.

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