analyze_file

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the model used and parameter roles, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the file is uploaded to an external service, file size/type limitations, or that this is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool handling user files.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a clean, bulleted argument list. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary fluff.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides adequate input semantics and usage context. However, it lacks constraints like accepted file extensions beyond 'etc.' and privacy/security notes, which would make it more complete for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting all 5 parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., file supports URL/data URI/local path, temperature range 0-1, thinking toggles deep thinking mode). This adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 documents/files using GLM-4.6V-Flash, listing supported formats (PDF, TXT, etc.) and access methods (URL, data URI, local path). This distinguishes it from siblings analyze_image and analyze_video, which target different media types.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for analyzing document-like files, and the sibling names imply image/video alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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