smc_full_analysis

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it combines multiple tools and returns a specific JSON structure, which is useful context but not critical beyond annotations.

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 concise, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and then details the return structure in a clear bullet-like format.

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?

The description covers the tool's composite nature, input parameters implicitly, and return structure explicitly. For a tool that aggregates multiple analyses, this is sufficient.

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?

The only parameter is 'params', which is a nested object with well-described properties in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantics for parameters. Given schema coverage is 0% at top level but internally detailed, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it runs every SMC tool and returns a combined plain-English read. It lists the return fields and distinguishes from sibling tools which are individual analyses.

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 positions it as the fastest way to get a complete picture, implying when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the differentiation clear.

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