get_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only, lists all returned fields, handles missing analysis by returning a default (never null), and uses clear language. This is comprehensive for a retrieval tool.

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 well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose, then lists return fields, then explains edge cases, and ends with 'Read-only' and arguments. It is informative without unnecessary repetition.

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's simplicity (3 required UUID parameters, no output schema shown but exists), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, edge cases, and read-only guarantee. It leaves no gaps.

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 0%, but the description only restates parameter names with generic phrases like 'DT project UUID'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, failing to explain formats or constraints.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'analysis record for one finding'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_analysis' (modification) and 'list_findings' (listing many findings).

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 clear context: it retrieves an analysis record for a single finding, and explains the default return when no analysis exists. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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