analyze_antenna_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states what the tool recognizes but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what happens with multiple attachments, any limitations, or what the output contains. 'Recognize' hints at non-destructive analysis, but this is not explicit.

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 front-loaded sentence, easy to scan and appropriately short. However, it is concise at the cost of omitting necessary parameter and usage details, making it minimally useful rather than information-dense.

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 four parameters (two required), no annotations, and an output schema whose contents are not described, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's invocation context. It lacks parameter semantics, workflow placement, and behavioral expectations.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (description, attachments, model, template). It only hints that images/PDFs are relevant, but leaves the required 'description' parameter and the 'template' default completely unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'Recognize' and clearly identifies the resource ('antenna images/PDFs') and the attributes extracted (topology, labels, dimensions, materials, uncertainties). This differentiates it from siblings like refine_antenna_source or approve_antenna_source, which imply modification or approval rather than analysis.

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 description implies the tool is for extracting information from antenna source documents, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as refine_antenna_source or recheck_antenna_source. There is no explicit 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools, leaving workflow placement implicit.

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