analyze_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only mentions that 'raw details require enabled debug mode.' This discloses a minor behavioral aspect (debug-mode dependency) but says nothing about side effects, read/write behavior, performance, or side effects. It doesn't even clarify whether the tool is purely read-only or if it has any external impact.

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 10-word sentence, which is concise in length, but it sacrifices essential information. It front-loads the vague phrase 'lower-level local' and buries the only concrete behavior (debug mode) at the end. It is not 'concise' in the sense of packing essential details efficiently; it's merely short and uninformative.

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?

Despite having only 3 parameters and an output schema, the tool description fails to explain what the function does, what it returns, or how it fits in the workflow alongside siblings like prepare_for_external_ai or create_safe_copy. The mention of debug mode is an isolated detail with no context. The description is incomplete for an agent to use this tool effectively, even with the output schema available.

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%, so the description absolutely must explain the meaning of 'text', 'policy', and 'response_mode', but it does not. The description provides zero guidance on how parameters interact, what valid values exist (no enums), or how defaults like 'minimal' affect output. The description adds no value beyond what the bare parameter names suggest.

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 'Lower-level local review tool' gives a vague sense that the tool performs low-level local analysis but never specifies what 'review' or 'analyze' actually does, what input it processes, or what kind of output it produces. It does not clearly differentiate itself from sibling tools like redact_text or restore_text beyond a weak 'lower-level local' qualifier. The mention of raw details requiring debug mode hints at verbosity control but not purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'lower-level' implies a contrast with possibly higher-level siblings, but no alternative tool is named and no conditions for selection are given. No context, prerequisites, or examples are provided, making it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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