content_analyze_results

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no detail about side effects, writes, deletions, or other behavioral consequences. It only mentions routing through the dispatcher, which does not improve transparency.

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 short and to the point, with two sentences and a compact parameter list. It avoids unnecessary detail while still giving a minimal sense of the tool's operation.

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 an action that routes to a domain agent, the description omits what analyze_results does, what the output contains, and any conditions or prerequisites. Even though an output schema exists, the high-level description alone is not enough to fully understand the tool in context.

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 parameter descriptions add some meaning beyond the raw schema: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. However, both remain generic and do not specify expected structure, allowed keys, or examples, so the semantics are only partially clarified.

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 identifies the tool as running the 'content domain agent action analyze_results' and mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher, but it does not explain what analyze_results actually does or how it differs from the many sibling domain-agent tools. The purpose is therefore only partially clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative domain-agent actions, document agents, or the dispatcher siblings. The phrase 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' indicates context but not usage conditions.

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