analyze_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's workflow (detects file type, runs matching tools), performance characteristics (time estimates for each depth level), and constraints (use 'deep' only when needed). However, it doesn't mention error handling, output format, or system requirements.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the automated workflow, the second provides concrete examples, and the third offers practical depth recommendations. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good context about behavior and usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better explain what the analysis returns (e.g., report format, success/failure indicators) and any authentication or system dependencies.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about depth levels (e.g., 'quick' for triage, 'standard' sufficient for most files) but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline 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's purpose with specific verbs ('auto-analyze a file') and resources ('REMnux tools'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_file_info' (which likely provides basic metadata) or 'run_tool' (which requires manual tool selection). It specifies the automated workflow of file type detection followed by appropriate tool execution.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different depth levels: 'standard' for most files, 'deep' only when standard isn't sufficient, and 'quick' for fast triage. It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing automated analysis versus manual tool execution (e.g., 'run_tool').

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