get_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it discloses the rich return shape (files reviewed or not, findings with status/location, diagrams flagged on layout crossings) and the read-only nature implied by 'Read'. It stops short of explicitly stating there are no side effects or any permission requirements, so it is strong rather than complete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reads, and no filler. The long enumeration is dense but each item is load-bearing given there is no output schema to describe the return value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must define the return contract itself, and it enumerates the payload comprehensively (project through review state, including the diagram-crossing flag). Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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?

There is exactly one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it ('as returned by create_analysis or list_analyses'). The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb and resource with explicit scope; clearly separable from its read-only siblings.

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?

'Use it to check what is already recorded before adding more' gives a clear read-before-write context, which is genuinely actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the whole-analysis scope implicitly separates it from the narrower reads in the sibling list.

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