analyze_message

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

With no annotations, the description conveys it's an analysis tool (presumably read-only) and describes output features. However, it doesn't explicitly state non-destructive behavior or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 front-loaded sentences plus a parameter line. No redundant information; each part adds value. Efficient 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 no output schema and one parameter, the description covers purpose, input format, and output nature. Minor gap: no mention of return data format (e.g., JSON structure) or requirement for active capture.

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 single parameter 'can_id' is explained with both decimal and hex examples, adding meaning beyond the bare integer type. The schema has no description, so this fully compensates.

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 it deep-analyzes a single CAN message ID across captured frames, listing specific outputs (entropy, counter/checksum detection, signal candidates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decode_frame or track_signal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for single ID analysis but lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with other tools.

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