llm_fs_analyze_context

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: scans specific files, creates a summary file, and injects that summary into system prompts for routing decisions. Lacks details on permissions or reversibility, but sufficient for a read-like operation.

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?

Description is concise (6-7 lines) with clear structure: purpose, scanning details, usage guidance, and argument list. No wasted words, front-loaded with core intent.

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?

Completely covers the tool's use case, behavior, parameters, and integration with other tools. Output schema exists externally, so return values need not be explained. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'path' as workspace root and 'max_files' as limit, including defaults. Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 purpose: analyzing workspace files to build a routing context summary. It specifies the resource (workspace files) and output (context summary in a file). Differentiates from siblings like llm_route and llm_auto by stating it is used by them.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'once at start of session or after major refactors'. It also mentions that no further action is needed for subsequent routing. Does not explicitly list alternatives but contextually distinguishes from routing tools.

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