multimodal_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: this is an MVP that 'reports provider readiness' and 'never pretends provider-required work is complete', warning the agent not to expect real analysis output. It still says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what the created record looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler and the core behavior statement front-loaded. It is dense with undefined terms like 'bounded', but it is not padded.

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?

A five-parameter creation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage needs far more than two sentences. Return values, how 'provider readiness' is surfaced, and the meaning of taskId/createdBy are all absent.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. Only 'mode' is reflected (text vs. local asset); goal, content, taskId, and createdBy are never explained, including the required-vs-optional distinction or the default for createdBy.

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?

It names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('multimodal analysis record') and scopes it to 'text or a local asset', which maps to the mode enum. But 'bounded multimodal analysis record' is jargon that does not tell an agent what is actually produced or persisted, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and never mentions any of the eight sibling tools (design_check, review_request, artifact_manage, etc.) that might be the right choice instead. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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