lira_run_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real operational context: LIRA closes the model after the analysis so the agent must reopen it, a 'needs_user' status means a LIRA dialog blocks progress, and a geometrically unstable structure may 'finish' while still emitting warnings. It stops short of describing wait=false return behaviour or concurrency/error states.

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 scope statement is front-loaded in the first line, followed by clearly separated operational facts (precondition, wait/timeout, result contents, side effect). Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still usefully flags protocol verdict and warning-line content. The remaining gap is asynchrony after timeout and the wait=false path, which are the main things an agent could get wrong given three optional, undocumented parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains wait=true semantics, that timeout_s bounds the wait, and that the model defaults to the active one. It leaves the default timeout_s value and what wait=false returns or hands back unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Analyse a saved model') plus the default target ('the active one'), which distinguishes it from siblings like lira_analysis_status and lira_analysis_protocol that only report on an analysis. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('save changes first (lira_save_model)') and routes the agent to lira_analysis_status when the timeout fires while the analysis keeps running. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., while another analysis is already running) or how it differs from lira_analysis_protocol, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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