analyze_retention_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It states the tool analyzes and generates recommendations, implying a read-only analysis, but does not disclose output format, data sources beyond 'top videos', or any potential side effects. This is moderate transparency.

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 two sentences and efficiently packs the purpose, the proxies analyzed, the patterns identified, and the output type. Every word contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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, so the description should convey what the recommendations look like. It says 'gera recomendações de roteiro' but does not elaborate on structure, format, or how to consume the output. Given the clear purpose and documented parameters, it's adequate but incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the retention proxies but these are analysis outputs, not parameters. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so no credit above baseline.

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 retention proxies (engagement rate, amplification, duration, chapters) of top niche videos and generates script recommendations. This specific verb+resource separates it from sibling tools like analyze_title_patterns or benchmark_channel.

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 implies using this tool when you need to understand retention patterns and generate script recommendations for a niche. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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