analyze_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool performs read-only analysis, can be expensive, respects the timeout, or produces a combined report. The term 'aggregate' hints at merging diagnostics but leaves the actual behavior opaque.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core operation with no wasted words. It is efficiently phrased, though it sacrifices semantic detail for brevity.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with no annotations, two under-documented parameters, and a meaningful diagnostic role. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but an agent still lacks context about default behavior, requirement of fileset, and when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that the operation targets 'a fileset.' It does not explain the meaning or allowed values of fileset, nor the behavior and units of timeout_s beyond what the parameter name already suggests.

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 names a clear resource: syntax and compile-order diagnostics for a fileset. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like check_syntax or get_compile_order.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_syntax, get_compile_order, or run_project_audit. The meaning of 'aggregate' implies a combined diagnostic view, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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