get_full_analysis_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating no side effects and possible empty results. The description adds the submission source constraint but does not elaborate on the full results content or behavior beyond what annotations cover.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices parameter documentation, which is a structural gap.

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 an output schema and simple parameter set, the description fails to document the required parameter or the structure of the results. This incompleteness hinders effective tool usage, especially with zero schema description coverage.

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 defines one parameter 'file_hash' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what file_hash represents (e.g., hash algorithm), leaving the agent without necessary context to provide a valid input.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full analysis results for a file', with a specific qualifier 'submitted via the web portal'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_file' which likely performs submission, and search tools which query different indices.

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 implies use after a file has been submitted via the web portal, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context of siblings provides differentiation, but explicit guidance is absent.

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