Analyze a CERIF document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool parses and reports structure, clearly implying a read-only analysis. It does not disclose error handling for invalid XML or file-not-found cases, but the core non-destructive behavior is well conveyed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and specific outputs, and includes a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description enumerates the exact output fields, which is valuable given no output schema is present. It gives a clear use case and sufficient detail for an analysis tool, though it does not mention handling of invalid input or mutual exclusivity of the two parameters.

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's 'string or file' echoes the xml/file parameters, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds little extra semantic value.

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 parses a CERIF XML document and lists the specific structural elements it reports (root element, namespace, attributes, entity counts, total elements, max depth). This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_xml (validation) and extract_entities (entity extraction).

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 says it is useful for understanding existing CERIF data before extending it, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring validate_xml for schema validation.

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