analyze_root_file

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the fallback behavior (HTTP preference vs. xrdcp copy). However, it does not specify whether the tool is read-only or describe any side effects, leaving some behavioral 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds necessary context.

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 description fails to mention that no output schema is available, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool returns (e.g., a structured JSON representation of the file). It also does not explain the output format or contents, which is critical for tool invocation.

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 adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, essentially restating the allow_copy behavior already documented.

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's action ('Analyze') and specific resource ('ROOT file structure, trees, and branches'), distinguishing it from siblings like check_file_exists or get_file_info that serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to set allow_copy (if HTTP-based access fails), but does not offer explicit context on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it.

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