analyze_text

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 analysis and report generation but lacks details on what 'insights' entail, whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 functionality ('Analyzes a story page') and adds the outcome ('generates a report with insights') without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'report' or 'insights' look like, potential limitations, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral or output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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' documented as 'The story page text to analyze or enhance'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the documentation adequately.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('a story page'), and specifies the output ('generates a report with insights'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'custom_enhance_text' or 'enhance_text', which appear to have related but potentially different functions.

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 its siblings ('custom_enhance_text' and 'enhance_text'), nor does it mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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