analyze_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It successfully communicates a conservative, non-inferential analysis stance and implies a read-only action, but it does not explain what 'conservative' concretely means, whether any side effects exist, or what characteristics are examined. The output schema can cover return shape, but broader behavioral context is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words, so it is easy to scan. 'Conservatively' and 'without inference' are close to redundant, but the overall structure is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 26 siblings and no annotations, the definition is too thin: it gives no clue which prompt characteristics are analyzed, no contrast with validate_prompt or analyze_invocation, and no statement about when it is the right choice. The output schema reduces return-value ambiguity, but selection context is still a meaningful gap.

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 schema provides no description for the only parameter, giving 0% coverage, and the tool description does not compensate. It does not explain the expected form of 'prompt', any constraints, or examples, so the agent gets no semantic value beyond the property name itself.

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 names a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('prompt'), and adds the qualifiers 'conservatively' and 'without inference' to convey a descriptive, non-speculative intent. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not define which 'characteristics' are covered or explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like validate_prompt and analyze_invocation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings; the description never names alternatives or conditions. 'Conservatively' and 'without inference' describe how the analysis should behave, not the situations that should trigger the tool, leaving selection largely to inference.

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