analyze_dsr_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'detects patterns' but does not disclose read-only behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with a main line, a bullet list of articles, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The article list is slightly lengthy but relevant; overall it is efficient and clear.

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 need not be detailed, but the description still misses usage guidance and behavioral traits. It adequately covers purpose and parameters, so it is somewhat complete for a tool of this complexity.

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. The Args section adds brief descriptions for all three parameters (code, language, file_path) and gives examples for language. However, it does not specify constraints or formats beyond basic explanation.

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 tool analyzes code for DSR implementation capabilities and explicitly lists specific GDPR articles (Art. 15-22). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_breach_readiness or analyze_data_flow, which focus on other aspects.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, making it hard for the agent to choose among many GDPR analysis siblings.

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