biz-analyze

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cost and 'reasoning' but misrepresents the input schema as only requiring 'context', omitting optional 'goal' and 'constraints'. This reduces transparency and could mislead about required parameters.

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 sentence plus meta information, but includes promotional text ('the original...now settled in MESH') that is not essential to tool usage. It is concise but could be more focused.

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 tool's complexity with nested parameters and no output schema, the description fails to cover important details like the optional parameters, output format, or how it differs from similar tools. It is incomplete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no value beyond the schema and actually simplifies the input to just 'context', ignoring 'goal' and 'constraints'. This actively harms parameter understanding rather than enhancing it.

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 analyzes business situations and returns structured recommendations, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'task-analysis' tool beyond being broader.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'task-analysis' or 'safety-scrub'. The description solely focuses on capability without usage context.

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