analyze_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool starts with summaries and a bounded number of transitions for incremental drilling, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the summaries contain, authentication needs, or pagination/drill-down mechanics.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause adds information about scope or incremental behavior.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more for a five-parameter analytical tool. It omits the meaning of key parameters, return shape beyond 'summaries,' and operational constraints, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It explains max_edges partially and gestures at a time window, but leaves capture_id, channel, start_s, and duration_s semantics, defaults, and units undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: analyzing a bounded time window of a saved channel. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic capture/decode siblings, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling tool.

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 phrase 'so the agent can drill down incrementally' implies an iterative workflow, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives among the sibling tools.

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