12 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern) and basic descriptions. All tools are READ_ONLY file operations with clear intent. However, descriptions are terse (avg ~40 chars, well below the 194-char baseline), lack context on WHEN to use each tool, and parameter descriptions are minimal. Input schemas are present but sparse, most parameters lack constraints (enums, ranges, formats). Output schemas are not documented. No error handling guidance. Tool composition is reasonable (single responsibility), but descriptions do not guide LLM selection between similar tools (e.g., analyze_file vs analyze_directory vs get_outline).

• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 200 chars. Include WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, and how it differs from similar tools. E.g., 'Analyze code structure (classes, functions, imports, complexity metrics). Use this for detailed code metrics; use get_outline for a quick function/class list.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Specify field names, types, and structure. E.g., analyze_file returns {structure: {classes: [...], functions: [...]}, imports: [...], complexity: number}.
• Add constraints to parameters: search_files pattern should document glob syntax; read_chunk chunk_size should specify range (e.g., 1 - 10485760 bytes); file_types should show example extensions.
• Add error handling guidance to descriptions. E.g., 'If file not found, returns error code 404. Try list_files() to verify the path exists.'
• Consolidate overlapping tools or clarify their distinct purposes. Consider renaming analyze_file to analyze_file_metrics and get_outline to list_file_symbols to reduce ambiguity.

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry