analyze

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions default output format and the alternative 'format=json'. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or any rate limits. This is insufficient for behavioral 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct information: first defines the tool, second clarifies output defaults and options. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite minimal. It covers output format but does not explain the 'lens' parameter meanings, the 'days' range, or the 'agent' filter. It provides the bare essentials but lacks completeness for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value by noting that the default output is 'formatted markdown' and that format=json gives 'raw data', but the schema already describes the enum options. No additional semantics for other parameters.

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 phrase 'Session analytics and insights engine' clearly communicates the tool's purpose: analyzing sessions to produce insights. It mentions default markdown output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'reflect_scars', so it loses a point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The only usage instruction is about the format parameter, which is more about parameter usage than tool selection. This leaves the agent without clarity on context of use.

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