analyze_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It lacks any mention of side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a multi-mode analysis tool, this is a significant gap.

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, packed sentence that front-loads all key information. 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 description does not explain what each mode returns, nor does it specify which parameters are required for each mode. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a description (e.g., mode enum values explained). The tool description lists modes but adds minimal value beyond the schema. 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Multi-mode environment analysis' and lists specific analysis types (risk scores, attack surface, prioritize, compare, timelines). This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools, which are more granular (e.g., find_escalation_paths).

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 implies usage through its mode enumeration (e.g., use 'risk_score' for overall risk, 'attack_surface' for breakdown). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. siblings, but the modes provide clear guidance.

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