analyze_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool modifies data, requires authorization, or has side effects. The description is too vague to inform an agent about important behavioral aspects.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks depth. It could be improved by adding more details without becoming overly long. The front-loading is adequate but the content is too generic.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior and usage. It does not explain what the return value is, how frameworks affect analysis, or how to use the options parameter.

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 75% coverage with descriptions for documentId, analysisType, and framework. The general description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage. However, the 'options' parameter lacks a description, and the description does not clarify parameter usage.

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 verb 'analyze' and the resource 'document', and mentions using frameworks and mental models. However, it does not specify the scope or types of analysis, and it could be more specific to differentiate from sibling tools like get_document.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The description fails to help the agent decide between analyze_document and other document tools like search_documents or get_document.

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