analyze_prompt_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool analyzes but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. The agent must infer that it is non-destructive from the word 'analyze'.

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 at two sentences, with a clear trigger hint and bullet-point-like argument list. The emoji adds flair but does not detract. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns. It also lacks context on scope (e.g., whether it analyzes prompts across all users or just the current user). It is adequate for periodic detection but incomplete for comprehensive understanding.

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 explains both parameters (session_id and limit) with their purpose and defaults. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies types and defaults.

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 that the tool detects meta-patterns in user prompts, specifically loop failures, anticipation gaps, and depth rejections. This provides a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'bias_scan'.

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 begins with 'TRIGGER: Call this periodically', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool (periodic monitoring). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for deeper analysis.

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