arc_analyze_tabs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the types of analysis but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., performance implications, data sources). It provides moderate added value beyond annotations.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key analysis types. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return value format or how to use analysis results. Parameters are largely unexplained. For a tool with 4 params and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate. While 'duplicates, stale tabs, etc.' hint at possible values for the 'analyses' parameter, there is no explanation of what each analysis type does, nor descriptions for 'limit', 'include_evidence', or 'stale_before'. The description adds minimal semantic value for 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 description clearly states the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'Arc tabs', and lists specific analysis types (duplicates, stale tabs, junk candidates, missing URLs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like arc_query_tabs or arc_get_tab which are for retrieval 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as arc_query_tabs or arc_get_overview. The intended use for analysis is implied but not contrasted with other tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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