Group analysis of related functions

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is smaller. It adds the useful detail that analysis spans a call graph and shared data across functions, but does not state cost, scale limits, or what happens with unrelated addresses, so it only modestly exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of outputs; every clause carries information and there is zero 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, 'related' is never defined (related by call graph? by address adjacency?) and multi-address grouping behavior is left ambiguous, leaving a gap for a tool whose whole premise is grouping.

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 addrs (comma-separated or list) and the optional instance_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('related functions as a group') and enumerates the outputs: per-function summaries, internal call graph, shared data. This distinguishes it from analyze_function (single) and analyze_batch, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 word 'group' implies usage (analyze several related functions together), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many sibling tools like analyze_function, analyze_batch, or callgraph. The agent must infer the selection condition.

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