Ultrabrain Analyze

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing the kinds of analysis performed, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as reliance on a session_id or potential side effects. It is consistent with annotations, hence no contradiction.

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 of 13 words, efficiently listing key analysis aspects. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly sparse.

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 no output schema, the description would benefit from describing the return format. It lists analysis items but does not specify structure (e.g., JSON fields). With two optional parameters and good annotations, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding extra meaning.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Analyze') and lists specific aspects (quality, confidence, bias counts, etc.), making the tool's purpose apparent. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like ultrabrain_metrics or ultrabrain_review, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 other siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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