rednote_analyze_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions fetching from data source for note_id and lists return fields (sentiment, hooks, etc.), but lacks details on error handling, behavior when both parameters provided, or auth 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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, then methods. The Args block adds structure, but some redundancy could be removed.

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 no output schema and all optional parameters, the description covers what the tool does, its inputs, and outputs. Lacks edge-case behavior but sufficient for an analytical tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: explains note_id fetches from source, content is for direct analysis, and title is used with content. This compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 a note's structure, sentiment, and engagement patterns. It distinguishes from siblings like rednote_get_note_detail (raw content) and rednote_extract_patterns (pattern extraction) by focusing on deeper analysis.

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 explains two usage modes (by note_id or direct content), which guides when to use each. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like rednote_get_note_detail.

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