analyze_problem

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. It mentions 'process' and 'full UCPF framework', implying analysis or transformation, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it performs computations, returns structured data, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation and impact.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted information.

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 complexity implied by 'full UCPF framework' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it handles state or detailed analysis, or its behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact with the UCPF framework or typical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the tool 'processes a problem statement through the full UCPF framework', which provides a clear verb ('process') and resource ('problem statement') with a specific methodology ('UCPF framework'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'creative_exploration' or 'manage_state', leaving the specific scope of 'full UCPF framework' somewhat vague compared to alternatives.

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 tools 'creative_exploration' or 'manage_state'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone without clear alternatives or constraints.

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