fmea_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool 'enumerates what CAN fail,' implying a read-only analysis, but does not disclose whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The presence of an output schema is indicated but not described in the text. The agent gains no insight into side effects or behavioral constraints.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with a clear trigger, followed by a brief definition and parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: when to use, what it does, and what the parameter means. It could include example output or expected behavior, but for a modest tool this is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in the input schema), but the tool description explicitly defines the parameter: 'component: The system/component/feature to analyze.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and title, helping the agent understand what to provide.

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's purpose: to perform FMEA (Failure Mode & Effects Analysis) by proactively enumerating potential failures. It provides a specific trigger ('when designing a new feature before writing any code'), which distinguishes it from general analysis tools. The verb 'analyze' is implied but the resource ('what CAN fail') is explicit.

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 includes an explicit trigger: 'Call this when designing a new feature before writing any code.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., fmea_risk_gate), which prevents a score of 5.

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