Critical gaps across all dimensions. Tool definitions are inferred from test files rather than explicit registration code. Only 1 of 12 tools has a visible input schema (zig_format with 2 params). Descriptions are present but generic (avg ~40 chars, well below 194-char baseline). No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. No parameter descriptions for most tools. Schema visibility is severely limited, most tool definitions appear in test/manifest files, not core implementation, making actual registration unclear.

• Add explicit input schemas to all 11 tools lacking them. Include type, description, and constraints for every parameter. Reference zig_format as the model.
• Expand descriptions to 100-200 chars. Include: what the tool does, when to call it (vs similar tools), what it returns, and any prerequisites. Example: 'Explains Zig compiler errors and diagnostics. Call this after a failed zig build to understand error messages and suggested fixes. Returns error code, message, and recovery steps.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify field names, types, and whether results are paginated. Include total_count and next_cursor for list-returning tools.
• Add error handling: categorize errors as retryable (network timeout) vs user-fixable (invalid input) vs fatal (permission denied). Include actionable recovery guidance in error responses.
• Rename 'zigars_failure_fusion' to 'analyze_project_failures' and 'zigars_validate_patch' to 'validate_code_patch' for clarity. Ensure names start with action verbs.