Analyze a document with Claude

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently discloses the most critical trait: external outbound communication to the Claude API when an API key is configured, and no call otherwise. It also reveals the conditional output behavior (ready-to-paste prompt vs. structured JSON). It could add details about data handling or failures, but the core side effects are clearly exposed.

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 two short bilingual paragraphs with the critical external-communication warning bolded and front-loaded. Every clause contributes either behavioral context or configuration guidance, with no filler.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main call conditions, the structured output mode, and the no-key fallback. It does not specify the exact response shape, but the `kind` enum and schema descriptions compensate for much of that. The behavior description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the two possible outcomes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a little by tying `kind` to structured JSON extraction with risks/stakeholders/requirements/summary cases. It does not expand meaningfully on `text` or `task` beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema documents every parameter, this is adequate.

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 names a specific verb (analyze) and resource (existing documents such as minutes/RFP/design docs), and clearly states the behavior of sending text to the Claude API or returning a prompt. It also identifies structured extraction via the `kind` parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling document tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete conditions: with an API key the text is sent outbound, without one it only returns a ready-to-use prompt, and `kind` requests structured JSON. This helps an agent understand when the tool has external side effects. However, it does not name alternatives like summarize_document_for_architecture, extract_from_document, or read_document, nor explain when to choose this tool over them.

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