analyze_question_timing

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

Discloses read-only nature and performance caveat ('may be slower than score-only tools'). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it covers behavioral traits adequately.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then parameter details, then notes. Each sentence serves a purpose; no fluff or redundancy. Efficient communication.

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?

Describes outputs (section clock usage, thirds, tags, time sinks, fast guesses) but lacks explicit return structure or error conditions. However, for selection purposes, it provides sufficient context.

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 covers all 3 parameters; description adds context: explains limit range, minN filters tag rankings, forceRefresh refreshes mock list. Adds value beyond schema, but schema already provides baseline descriptions.

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 analyzes per-question timing with specific metrics (section clock usage, thirds, tags, time sinks, fast guesses). It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_score_trends by focusing on pacing analysis.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user asks about pacing, running out of time, or rushing') and what it is not a substitute for ('score trends or topic accuracy rankings'). No ambiguity.

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