analyze_twb

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose non-obvious traits: it operates only on on-disk files, will not touch the in-memory workbook, does not persist the current workbook, and requires a prior save for fresh workbooks. It does not state whether the file is modified or what kind of report is produced, but the operational constraints are well surfaced.

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?

Purpose sentence is front-loaded, followed by the constraint block; every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly verbose phrasing around the save_workbook instruction, but acceptable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The key gap is sibling routing versus validate_workbook/profile_twb_for_migration; otherwise the prerequisites and constraints an agent needs to invoke this correctly are present.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning ('must already exist on disk', TWB/TWBX file scope) but omits format details such as absolute vs relative paths, accepted extensions, or path syntax.

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 (analyze) and resource (TWB/TWBX file) plus the scope of analysis (against cwtwb's declared capabilities). It is clearer than most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like validate_workbook, profile_twb_for_migration, or inspect_target_schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition (file_path must already exist on disk), an explicit exclusion (cannot analyze the in-memory workbook, does not save it), and a routing instruction (call save_workbook first for a newly generated workbook). It stops short of naming alternative analysis/validation siblings and when to prefer them.

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