AnalyzeFile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the need for a 'valid Path', implying some validation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what the analysis entails, whether it's read-only or destructive, error handling, or output format. The description is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.

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 short sentences with zero waste—it directly states the action and a critical requirement. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 complexity (analysis implies some processing), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analysis' means, what results to expect, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full use.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the 'file_path' must be a 'valid Path', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic 'File Path' title. However, it doesn't detail path formats or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 states the action ('Run a file through analysis') and resource ('file'), but 'analysis' is vague—it doesn't specify what type of analysis (e.g., security, content, format) or what the analysis produces. Without sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but the purpose lacks specificity beyond a generic verb.

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 includes a mandatory requirement ('You MUST provide a valid Path'), which is a basic usage constraint, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool (e.g., for what scenarios or goals) or any prerequisites beyond the path. No alternatives are mentioned, but since there are no sibling tools, this is less critical.

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