get_sift_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('retrieves'), which implies safety, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if IDs are invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that accesses sensitive investigation data.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'analysis' contains, the return format, or behavioral traits like data sensitivity. Given the context (investigation data access), more detail is needed to help an agent use it correctly and safely.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying UUIDs are used for identification. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., explaining relationship between investigation and analysis IDs).

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 clearly states the action ('retrieves') and resource ('a specific analysis from an investigation'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sift_investigation' or 'list_sift_investigations', which would require mentioning it fetches a single analysis rather than a list or investigation details.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing investigation and analysis), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_sift_investigations' for browsing analyses. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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