diana_analysis_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — that output is .dcf text, that detail paths are slash-joined with (n) block numbering, and that the path spelling was empirically derived and should be verified. That last caveat is a real transparency contribution beyond structured data.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a falsifiable path-syntax example and a verification instruction; every sentence contributes. Minor loss for the awkward opening clause and for spending lines on output path syntax while omitting the one input parameter.

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, the description does a decent job explaining the returned .dcf text and its path notation, and it sets expectations that spelling may vary. However, given a required parameter with zero schema documentation and no return-size/pagination hints, it is only partially complete for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single required parameter 'analysis', so the description carries the full burden — yet it never says what the argument should contain (an analysis name? a path filter? a block selector?). The example paths describe the output structure rather than the input, leaving the parameter meaning entirely undocumented.

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 and resource — it returns the open project rendered as DIANA .dcf command-file text produced by saveAnalysisCommands. The purpose is distinguishable from generic siblings like diana_changes, though the opening sentence is grammatically tangled and never explicitly contrasts itself with a named alternative.

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?

'Use it to check what setAnalysisCommandDetail did' gives a concrete when-to-use condition tied to the paired mutation tool, and the closing advice to 'verify each change here' reinforces the verification use case. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use cases or an alternative tool for a different question.

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