analyze_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description doesn't disclose what the tool actually does behaviorally - does it return a score, recommendations, explanations? What format is the analysis? Does it make API calls or perform local computation? The philosophical preamble about 'flow' doesn't help an agent understand the tool's operational behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 poorly structured with a philosophical preamble about 'flow' that doesn't help an agent understand the tool's function. The operational part is buried after this irrelevant context. While brief, the first sentence doesn't earn its place for tool selection purposes, making this inefficient rather than concise.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the analysis produces, how results are formatted, what 'flow' analysis entails operationally, or how this differs from other UX analysis tools. The philosophical context about flow state is irrelevant to tool invocation and doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral information.

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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' which aligns with the platform parameter's extensive enum list, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with a philosophical definition of 'flow' that doesn't directly state the tool's function. It then says 'Analiza código o componentes UI según esta ley para CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' which translates to 'Analyzes code or UI components according to this law for ANY PLATFORM.' This is somewhat tautological with the tool name 'analyze_flow' and doesn't specify what the analysis produces or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analyze_fitts_law' or 'analyze_hicks_law' that presumably analyze different UX principles.

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 mentions 'CUALQUIER PLATAFORMA' and lists many platform options in the schema, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analysis tools (e.g., analyze_fitts_law, analyze_hicks_law, analyze_cognitive_load). There's no indication of what types of code/components benefit from flow analysis versus other UX principles, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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