get_analysis

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like, whether any side effects occur, or what happens on failure.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and result. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly longer to clarify the identifier ambiguity.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description provides the basic purpose and expected output ('summary and output paths'). However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around output structure, the database-id option, and error behavior, making it only minimally adequate.

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%, and the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It mentions 'analysis id or database id,' but the schema only has analysis_id, creating ambiguity about whether analysis_id accepts a database id or whether a separate parameter is missing. No format or validation details are provided.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'analysis summary and output paths,' and it indicates lookup by an identifier. It is distinct enough from siblings like analyze_artifact and get_report, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_report or analyze_artifact. It only states the mechanism ('by analysis id or database id') without specifying context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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