Analyze Writing Voice & Drift

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the comparison to style_guide.json but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or what happens if the style guide is missing. This is a significant disclosure gap for an analysis tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main verb and lists key analysis dimensions. No wasted words, though the phrase 'so with' is a minor bilingual artifact but does not detract from clarity.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain return values or side effects. It does neither, and also doesn't mention dependencies like the style_guide.json file's existence. This leaves the agent under-informed about expected behavior.

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 already documents both arc and chapter with complete descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond indicating the analysis scope. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% 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 analyzes writing voice (sentence length, vocabulary, POV, tense) and detects voice drift against style_guide.json. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like story_analyze_pacing.

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 implies the use case—checking voice consistency against a style guide—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It mentions arc and chapter parameters, which gives context but no explicit selection guidance.

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