Analyze request

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

Annotations already establish idempotency, non-destructiveness, and that this is not a pure read. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it returns the structured explanation plus new findings, and it re-runs even when a cached result exists unless refresh is false, explaining the caching semantics directly.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by return behavior and the caching nuance. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no padding.

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?

With full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a two-parameter tool. It could note more explicitly that analysis may persist new findings, but overall an agent has what it needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The sentence 'Re-runs even if cached unless refresh is false' corroborates the schema's description of refresh but adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, and the provenance of request_id is also documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (run the analysis pipeline) and resource (a single captured request), and enumerates the analysis types (linting, schema drift, privacy, performance), which makes its scope concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from likely alternatives such as rescan_findings or run_ai_workflow.

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 phrase 'on a single captured request' implies scope, and the refresh note hints at re-run scenarios, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus rescan_findings, run_ai_workflow, or get_request. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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