content_analyze_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the action does beyond the name. Insufficient behavioral context for a tool that invokes a domain action.

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 concise—two sentences plus an arg list—and well-structured. It avoids fluff but could combine the initial statements for slightly tighter prose. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema (as per context signals), so description is not required to explain return values. However, the description fails to explain what the 'analyze_results' action does or what scenarios it targets, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 description adds meaning to parameters: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially but is brief. Baseline 3 is appropriate given coverage and added context.

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 it runs the 'analyze_results' action of the content domain agent. It provides the action name and mentions routing parameters, distinguishing it from generic tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from other content tools or sibling tools, which are numerous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without context about prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the action name alone.

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