analyze_struct_detailed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed analysis' but doesn't explain what this analysis returns, whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that presumably provides complex output.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, though it could be more specific about what 'analysis' entails.

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?

For a tool named 'analyze_struct_detailed' with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'detailed analysis' or what information is returned, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's capabilities and output format given the complexity implied by the name.

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% with one parameter ('name' of structure to analyze), so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Detailed analysis of a structure with all fields' states the general purpose (analyzing a structure) but is vague about what 'analysis' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_struct_info_simple' or 'get_struct_at_address'. It specifies 'with all fields' which adds some specificity, but doesn't clarify what type of analysis is performed.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_struct_info_simple' or 'get_struct_at_address'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage guidelines beyond the basic purpose statement.

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