analyze_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool returns statistics, without stating whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the input, whether there are length limits, or what specific statistics are computed. This is too thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The Args block adds a small amount of useful parameter context, but the opening phrase partially restates the tool name, so it does not earn a top score.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the input and the broad output type. However, 'statistics' is vague and there is no guidance relative to the sibling tools, so an agent still lacks confidence about what the tool will compute and when to prefer it.

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%, but the description explicitly defines the single parameter, text, as 'The text to analyze.' This adds a semantic role beyond the schema's bare string type, though it is minimal and does not mention format, length, or other constraints.

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 names a verb ('Analyze') and a resource ('text') and states that it returns statistics, but 'statistics' is left unspecified. It does not distinguish this generic utility from sibling tools like detect_dark_patterns or classify_pattern, so an agent cannot tell exactly what kind of analysis is being offered.

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 the sibling text-analysis tools. Since the sibling list contains tools with more specific purposes, an agent would have to guess whether analyze_text is the general-purpose option or if it is only for certain kinds of text.

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