analyze_retention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, what the suggestions look like, or any constraints on analysis; it only lists the inputs that inform generation.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the output front-loaded ahead of the inputs. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than dense.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a 'pacing and retention suggestion' looks like and how the tool differs from its many sibling analyzers. Neither is present, leaving the agent to guess at return shape and appropriate use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully flags that duration is optional ('optional duration') and that transcript length/structure drive the result, but it omits the duration bounds (max 3600s, must be >0) that the schema enforces.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) plus the resource produced (pacing and retention suggestions) and the inputs that drive it. An agent can distinguish 'retention analysis' from siblings like analyze_hook or analyze_video, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer analyze_video, analyze_hook, or normalize_transcript instead. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the transcript input.

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