Measure cross-file resolution coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only analytical purpose ('measure, not assert') and details what statistics are aggregated: confidence tiers, import resolution, and multi-file name definitions. It does not discuss error behavior or indexing prerequisites explicitly, but the 'over the indexed workspace' phrasing implies the required state.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core action and output categories are front-loaded, and the final sentence adds concise usage guidance without padding.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation context and the shape of the output metrics. It could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites such as needing a previously indexed workspace, but that is reasonably inferred from 'indexed workspace'.

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 100%, so the single 'root' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden adequately.

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 uses a specific verb ('Aggregate') and identifies a precise resource ('resolution statistics over the indexed workspace'). It enumerates the specific kinds of metrics produced, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on individual definitions or references.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a measurement tool ('Use it to measure, not assert') and connects it to assessing cross-file navigation, which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not name alternative tools or explain when not to use it, but the aggregate-versus-individual distinction is strongly implied.

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