analyze_semantic_structure

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. It only mentions that it 'provides insight' and 'shows' output, which is insufficient to understand its behavioral footprint.

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 brief and focused: two sentences that state the purpose and output. There is no redundant information or unnecessary fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the essential input and output details. It explains what the tool does, what it returns ('Semantic analysis with entities, relations, and optional logical forms'), and the key parameter options. It lacks mention of error conditions or edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward analysis tool.

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?

The schema fully defines the parameters (text as required string, include_logical_form as optional boolean with default). The description adds a bit of semantic context ('Text to analyze semantically' and 'Whether to include the formal logical representation') but does not go beyond what the parameter names and types imply. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, and the description provides minimal extra 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 a specific action ('Analyze the semantic structure of text') using a specific method ('Montague Grammar parsing'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wiki_search, ingest_text, and query_knowledge by focusing on formal semantic analysis rather than retrieval or ingestion.

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 provides no guidance on when this tool should be used over alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, limitations, or contrasting scenarios that would help an agent decide between this and other sibling tools.

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