analyze_cognitive_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists computed metrics but does not state whether the tool modifies state (destructive), requires specific user permissions, has side effects, or is read-only. Without annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and outputs. Every word earns its place; no redundancy. Ideal length for a straightforward tool.

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 two parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description provides a minimal set of output concepts but lacks details on how results are structured, error handling, interpretation guidance, or prerequisites. For an analysis tool, more completeness would help the agent use 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description adds the context of output metrics, which helps understand the parameters' role (e.g., entityNames as input to compute metrics, loadThreshold as filter). However, it does not add format or syntax details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'cognitive load of a set of entities'. It lists specific output metrics (token density, redundancy ratio, diversity score, composite load score), making the tool's purpose distinct among many sibling tools. No sibling similarly targets cognitive load analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many analysis functions (e.g., detect_contradictions, detect_patterns), but the description does not indicate when cognitive load analysis is appropriate or what problem it solves. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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