workbench_analyze_runs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'analyze' and 'write report artifacts' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file creation), required permissions, or if it is read-only. The lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that states the core action efficiently. It is not verbose, but brevity comes at the cost of missing critical details. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description does not explain parameters, output, or prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the description does not leverage it to clarify return values. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description provides no parameter-specific information, failing to clarify the roles of 'runs_dir', 'task_type', 'since', etc. Baseline would be 1-2, and the description does not compensate.

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 specifies the verb 'analyze' and 'write' with clear resources: 'local Workbench run ledgers' and 'report artifacts'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like workbench_open_run and workbench_validate_run by focusing on analysis and artifact generation.

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. The purpose is inferred from the description and sibling names, but there is no direct comparison or context for selection.

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