origin_run_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run a named Origin analysis X-Function through LabTalk.' but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether data is modified, new worksheets created), error conditions, or output structure. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 sentence, making it extremely concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with the action but lacks structure for a complex tool with multiple parameters.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral information, the description is insufficient. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of explanation about the analysis execution process, input requirements, or potential outputs. More context is needed for effective use.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description adds no meaning for any of the 8 parameters. It only mentions 'analysis' implicitly but does not explain required parameters like 'analysis' or optional ones like 'worksheet', 'x_col', 'y_col', etc.

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 ('run'), the resource ('named Origin analysis X-Function'), and the mechanism ('through LabTalk'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like origin_run_labtalk which runs arbitrary LabTalk scripts. However, it assumes knowledge of what an X-Function is, which could be clarified.

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 like origin_run_labtalk or other analysis tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the analysis must be loaded or configured beforehand. No exclusions or usage scenarios are mentioned.

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