svg_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully explains that the quality operation runs 11 weighted checks and explains every deduction with a fixing tool call, which is valuable behavioral detail. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what output shape it returns, or any side effects, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose and operation list immediately, then adds the most important behavioral detail about the quality operation. The only minor issue is the sentence fragment 'Document analysis.' but overall there is no wasted wording.

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 tool has five operations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what each operation returns, what the default operation is, or whether input_path is effectively required despite being listed as optional. This leaves an agent without enough information to reliably invoke the tool and interpret its results across all modes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by specifying the valid operation values that the schema only refers to via 'See the tool summary for valid values.' It also clarifies what the quality operation does with its 11 weighted checks, giving the agent useful parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 identifies the tool as 'Document analysis' and enumerates concrete operations (statistics, structure, dimensions, quality, full), which makes its purpose reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like svg_validate or svg_optimize, but the analysis-focused terminology is distinct enough.

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 lists the available operations but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as svg_validate or svg_optimize, nor when to prefer one operation over another. There is no mention of prerequisites, default behavior, or cases where an alternative should be used.

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