analyze_behavior

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a framework, does not perform the analysis, and scopes output to the situation. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read/transform tool this is acceptable. The absence of contradiction with annotations (none) supports this.

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 core purpose, followed by a clarifying contrast. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 tool is conceptually simple with three parameters and no output schema. The description explains what the tool returns and what it does not do, which is essential for correct usage. It could elaborate on terms like 'ASEKE' or 'output discipline,' but given the sibling context and clear boundaries, the coverage is sufficient.

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 schema already explains all three parameters. The description adds context about 'behavior, situation, or conflict' aligning with the 'description' parameter, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Scaffold') and resource ('an ASEKE analysis'). It explicitly states what it returns (5-step framework scoped to candidate patterns) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not perform the analysis itself, whereas siblings like match_patterns might.

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 clearly states a 'when not to use' boundary: 'Does not perform the analysis — the caller does.' This implies the tool is for scaffolding/preparatory work. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a comprehensive when-to-use guide, though the sibling list and this boundary make usage clear.

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