analyze_org_argument

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output categories but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific input formatting, or has side effects. The nature of mapping suggests a safe analysis, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 listing many components, which is adequate but somewhat verbose. It front-loads the main verb but could be more concise by grouping categories or using bullet points. Still, it is not excessively long.

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 the lack of output schema, no parameter guidance, and 15 sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the tool returns or how to interpret the mapped categories, nor does it help the agent decide when to use this over other analysis tools.

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%, meaning the parameter 'input' has no description beyond its name. The tool description does not explain what the input should contain (e.g., a full argument text, a sentence), its expected format, or provide examples. This leaves the agent guessing.

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 uses a specific verb 'maps' and lists concrete output components (symptom, diagnosis, assumed cause, etc.), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'critique_org_text' or 'detect_solution_first_thinking' by focusing on mapping reasoning structure rather than critiquing or detecting patterns.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'critique_org_text' or 'detect_solution_first_thinking'. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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