Japanese Text Analyzer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what analyses are performed, it doesn't describe output format, performance characteristics, error conditions, or any limitations (e.g., text length constraints, language support). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and specific analyses. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of core function versus analysis types.

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 tool's complexity (linguistic analysis with multiple metrics) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the analysis results look like, how they're structured, or what users can expect from the output. For a tool performing detailed analysis without output documentation, this creates significant ambiguity for proper usage.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' clearly documented in the schema as 'text to analyze'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 performs 'detailed morphological analysis and linguistic feature analysis' of text, specifying specific analyses like sentence complexity, part-of-speech ratios, and lexical diversity. It uses specific verbs ('analyzes') and resources ('text'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file' or 'count_words'.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'analyze_file' (for file-based analysis) or 'count_words' (for simpler counting), nor does it specify contexts where detailed linguistic analysis is preferred over basic counting operations.

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