Single tool 'analyze_file_impact' has adequate naming and schema but lacks depth in descriptions and error handling. The tool is correctly named with a verb prefix (analyze_), has a documented input schema with proper types, but parameter descriptions are minimal. Output structure is generic (status/data/message pattern) without detailed field documentation. No error classification or recovery guidance. No tool annotations. STDIO transport caps protocol readiness at 50, which cascades into overall assessment.
Analyze the impact scope of a specified file
Parameter descriptions are minimal (under 20 chars each), 'Project root directory path' and 'Target file path' lack detail on expected format, constraints, or error conditions
Output schema lacks documentation, response structure (status, data, message fields) is not formally documented; LLM cannot infer the shape of 'data' (list of objects with 'file' and 'symbols' fields) without reading implementation code
Error handling returns generic status/message pattern without actionable guidance, 'status: error, message: str(e)' exposes raw exception text to LLM, no classification (retryable vs fatal), no recovery suggestions
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite being a READ_ONLY tool, LLM cannot infer safety classification from the tool definition
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | D | 57 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 38 | - | v1 |
Tool description does not specify prerequisites or expected project structure, LLM does not know what constitutes a valid 'project_path' or what file types are supported (Python, Rust, TypeScript, Go, Java, Kotlin, Swift, C#, C, C++ per Cargo.toml; unclear to consumer)
No pagination or result limiting despite returning potentially large lists, response can contain unbounded 'related_symbols' arrays per file, risking context window exhaustion for large projects